2018
DOI: 10.3390/rs10111723
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ground and Multi-Class Classification of Airborne Laser Scanner Point Clouds Using Fully Convolutional Networks

Abstract: Various classification methods have been developed to extract meaningful information from Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) point clouds. However, the accuracy and the computational efficiency of the existing methods need to be improved, especially for the analysis of large datasets (e.g., at regional or national levels). In this paper, we present a novel deep learning approach to ground classification for Digital Terrain Model (DTM) extraction as well as for multi-class land-cover classification, delivering highly… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The recall and precision value indicated that the model is highly trustable (precision: 0.86), correctly detecting 72% of the ground points. The values attained for the ground class were similar to the ones reported by Rizaldy et al [25], who reached an average total error of 5.21%, with low type I (4.28%) and type II (14.28%) errors, meaning that more non-ground points were mislabeled. The higher type II error was explained by the number of non-ground data points in both samples being considerably lower than the number of ground points.…”
Section: Convenience Of Using Imbalanced or Balanced Datasets For Poisupporting
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The recall and precision value indicated that the model is highly trustable (precision: 0.86), correctly detecting 72% of the ground points. The values attained for the ground class were similar to the ones reported by Rizaldy et al [25], who reached an average total error of 5.21%, with low type I (4.28%) and type II (14.28%) errors, meaning that more non-ground points were mislabeled. The higher type II error was explained by the number of non-ground data points in both samples being considerably lower than the number of ground points.…”
Section: Convenience Of Using Imbalanced or Balanced Datasets For Poisupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The misclassification of some parts of the trees that were located near to the elevated embankment and the terrain break lines at the river banks produced the highest C2C distance (Figure 4a,c). Rizaldy et al [25] reported a similar problem with the misclassification of non-ground points in the area where the ground surface is connected to the elevated bridge, because the boundary between the ground and the bridge is fuzzy owing to the gradual inclination of the road surface. As tree parts classified as ground were located at the same height as embankment, a similar explanation could be applied.…”
Section: Suitability Of the Proposed Methods To Produce Dem From Uav Amentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The last convolutional layer is a classification layer that produces two feature maps, which are the number of classes (AFB and non-AFB class), and they are fed to the soft-max module for the prediction as an output map. This architecture is inspired and improved with respect to [19,20].…”
Section: Multiple Dilation Fcn (Md-fcn) For Afb Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, CNN also shows superior performance in extracting distinctive features from point clouds (Hu and Yuan, 2016;Rizaldy et al, 2018). Our change detection framework was inspired by these two papers.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%