2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/icassp.2018.8461740
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Roof Type Classification Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks on Low Resolution Photogrammetric Point Clouds From Aerial Imagery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The dataset used by Partovi et al (2017) contains nearly 10,000 training images achieved a precision and recall of only 76%. Axelsson et al (2018) achieved the highest accuracy of 96.65% over two classes flat and ridge where ridge is equivalent to gable roof, these two classes are very distinct, the starting accuracy in Axlesson et al ( 2018) is 50%, much higher than other papers which start training at an accuracy of 12.5-14.3%. Alidoost and Arefi (2016) achieved a very high accuracy using 700 tiles with approximately 100 tiles per class, and it is the only paper where there was no class imbalance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The dataset used by Partovi et al (2017) contains nearly 10,000 training images achieved a precision and recall of only 76%. Axelsson et al (2018) achieved the highest accuracy of 96.65% over two classes flat and ridge where ridge is equivalent to gable roof, these two classes are very distinct, the starting accuracy in Axlesson et al ( 2018) is 50%, much higher than other papers which start training at an accuracy of 12.5-14.3%. Alidoost and Arefi (2016) achieved a very high accuracy using 700 tiles with approximately 100 tiles per class, and it is the only paper where there was no class imbalance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…To tackle an imbalance in classes, both Axelsson et al (2018) and Partovi et al (2017) added more images to the dataset by simply copying the images and augmenting images to artificially inflate the dataset, respectively, this was done prior to training as opposed to during training as done in this paper. The accuracy, precision and recall obtained in this paper are greater than all papers with the exception of Axelsson et al (2018). However, due to the difference in the number of classes, resolution, geographical location and number of images, it is difficult to draw a fair comparison between the studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the improvement of DL methods in indoor scenes, the segmentation methods of high LoD buildings' point clouds are still at the initial stage of development. Most existing studies focus on LoD1 (Chen et al, 2014;Zhang, Zhang, 2017;Zhang, 2018;Griffiths, Böhm, 2019;Huang et al, 2019), LoD2 (Hensel, 2019Jarząbek-Rychard, Borkowski, 2016), or one category of building's element (Axelsson et al, 2018).…”
Section: Fully Supervised Methods On 3d Point Cloudsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors used high-level features extracted from the last layer of a fine-tuned CNN as inputs to a second-stage SVM classifier. A similar strategy was proposed by Axelsson et al [24], who classified the patches of buildings from RGB aerial images into the two most common roof types, i.e., slope roofs and flat roofs, using transfer learning of a pre-trained CNN. Although patch-based classification with CNNs does not require feature pre-definition anymore, it needs an additional special training data preparation and, in most cases, does not contain the whole building as one element, but only parts of it.…”
Section: Pixel-wise Image Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%