Loading…
A Label-Constraint Building Roof Detection Method From Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds
Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) point clouds have become growingly popular as a reliable data source for 3-D digital building model reconstruction. Therefore, we develop a label-constraint approach for automatically detecting building roofs using airborne LiDAR point clouds and multispe...
Saved in:
Published in: | IEEE geoscience and remote sensing letters 2021-08, Vol.18 (8), p.1466-1470 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) point clouds have become growingly popular as a reliable data source for 3-D digital building model reconstruction. Therefore, we develop a label-constraint approach for automatically detecting building roofs using airborne LiDAR point clouds and multispectral images, where the label information is introduced in both the discriminative feature space generation and the detection procedure. To obtain a robust and highly discriminative descriptor, a supervised sparse coding-enhanced bag of visual word (SC-BOVW) model based on a learned discriminative dictionary is used to encode local geometric and spectral information within each super-voxel into high-level semantic representation, which is then fed into a support vector machine (SVM) classifier for distinguishing buildings from others. Additionally, a graph cut-based procedure is used as a postprocessing step to guarantee the spatial consistency in detection results. Experiments were conducted on the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS) benchmark data sets. Results indicate that the proposed method is accurate and efficient in terms of building roof region detection. Moreover, the proposed method is superior to other existing methods with average differences in recall of 2.23%, precision of 0.28% and quality of 1.99%. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1545-598X 1558-0571 |
DOI: | 10.1109/LGRS.2020.2999818 |