MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407058238 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14503

Benchmarking tree species classification from proximally sensed laser scanning data: Introducing the <scp>FOR</scp> ‐ <scp>species20K</scp> dataset

2025· article· en· W4407058238 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Puliti, Emily R. Lines, Jana Müllerová, Julian Frey, Zoe Schindler, Adrian Straker, Matthew J. Allen, Lukas Winiwarter, Nataliia Rehush, Hristina Hristova, Brent A. Murray, Kim Calders, Nicholas C. Coops, Bernhard Höfle, Liam Irwin, Samuli Junttila, Martin Krůček, Grzegorz Krok, Kamil Král, Shaun R. Levick, Linda Lück, Azim Missarov, Martin Mokroš, Harry Owen, Krzysztof Stereńczak, Timo Pitkänen, Nicola Puletti, Ninni Saarinen, Chris Hopkinson, Louise Terryn, Chiara Torresan, Enrico Tomelleri, Hannah Weiser, Rasmus Astrup

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNarodowe Centrum Badań i RozwojuNorges ForskningsrådAustrian Science FundAcademy of FinlandUK Research and InnovationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologyEuropean Commission
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceBenchmarkingTree (set theory)Laser scanningRemote sensingLidarRobustness (evolution)Data miningArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)Hyperspectral imagingMachine learningCartographyGeographyLaserBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Proximally sensed laser scanning presents new opportunities for automated forest ecosystem data capture. However, a gap remains in deriving ecologically pertinent information, such as tree species, without additional ground data. Artificial intelligence approaches, particularly deep learning (DL), have shown promise towards automation. Progress has been limited by the lack of large, diverse, and, most importantly, openly available labelled single‐tree point cloud datasets. This has hindered both (1) the robustness of the DL models across varying data types (platforms and sensors) and (2) the ability to effectively track progress, thereby slowing the convergence towards best practice for species classification. To address the above limitations, we compiled the FOR‐species20K benchmark dataset, consisting of individual tree point clouds captured using proximally sensed laser scanning data from terrestrial (TLS), mobile (MLS) and drone laser scanning (ULS). Compiled collaboratively, the dataset includes data collected in forests mainly across Europe, covering Mediterranean, temperate and boreal biogeographic regions. It includes scattered tree data from other continents, totaling over 20,000 trees of 33 species and covering a wide range of tree sizes and forms. Alongside the release of FOR‐species20K, we benchmarked seven leading DL models for individual tree species classification, including both point cloud (PointNet++, MinkNet, MLP‐Mixer, DGCNNs) and multi‐view 2D‐based methods (SimpleView, DetailView, YOLOv5). 2D Image‐based models had, on average, higher overall accuracy (0.77) than 3D point cloud‐based models (0.72). Notably, the performance was consistently &gt;0.8 across scanning platforms and sensors, offering versatility in deployment. The top‐scoring model, DetailView, demonstrated robustness to training data imbalances and effectively generalized across tree sizes. The FOR‐species20K dataset represents an important asset for developing and benchmarking DL models for individual tree species classification using proximally sensed laser scanning data. As such, it serves as a crucial foundation for future efforts to classify accurately and map tree species at various scales using laser scanning technology, as it provides the complete code base, dataset, and an initial baseline representative of the current state‐of‐the‐art of point cloud tree species classification methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207