CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The influence of training data variability on a supervised machine learning classifier for Structure from Motion (SfM) point clouds of rock slopes

Weidner, Luke, Walton, Gabriel·2021·Engineering Geology
DOI 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106344
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106344

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Becker, 2018, Classification of aerial photogrammetric 3D point clouds, Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens., 84, 287, 10.14358/PERS.84.5.287 · DOI
  2. Beretta, 2019, Automated lithological classification using UAV and machine learning on an open cast mine, Appl. Earth Sci., 128, 79, 10.1080/25726838.2019.1578031 · DOI
  3. Bonneau, 2020, A method for vegetation extraction in mountainous terrain for rockfall simulation, Remote Sens. Environ., 251, 112098, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112098 · DOI
  4. Brodu, 2012, 3D terrestrial lidar data classification of complex natural scenes using a multi-scale dimensionality criterion: applications in geomorphology, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 68, 121, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2012.01.006 · DOI
  5. Crawford, 2013, Active Learning: any value for classification of remotely sensed data?, Proc. IEEE, 101, 593, 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2231951 · DOI
  6. DiFrancesco, 2020, The implications of M3C2 projection diameter on 3D semi-automated rockfall extraction from sequential terrestrial laser scanning point clouds, Remote Sens., 12, 1885, 10.3390/rs12111885 · DOI
  7. Dunham, 2017, Rockfall activity index (RAI): a lidar-derived, morphology-based method for hazard assessment, Eng. Geol., 221, 184, 10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.03.009 · DOI
  8. Eltner, 2016, Image-based surface reconstruction in geomorphometry - merits, limits and developments, Earth Surf. Dyn., 4, 359, 10.5194/esurf-4-359-2016 · DOI
  9. Farmakis, 2020, Automated 3D jointed rock mass structural analysis and characterization using LiDAR terrestrial laser scanner for rockfall susceptibility assessment: perissa area case (Santorini), Geotech. Geol. Eng., 38, 3007, 10.1007/s10706-020-01203-x · DOI
  10. Farmakis, 2021, Targeted rock slope assessment using voxels and object-oriented classification, Remote Sens., 13, 1354, 10.3390/rs13071354 · DOI
  11. Fernandez-Delgado, 2014, Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems?, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15, 3133
  12. Gallwey, 2021, A machine learning approach for the detection of supporting rock bolts from laser scan data in an underground mine, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol., 107, 103656, 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103656 · DOI
  13. Guerin, 2020, Quantifying 40 years of rockfall activity in Yosemite Valley with historical Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning, Geomorphology, 356, 107069, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107069 · DOI
  14. Hsu, 2020, Incorporating handcrafted features into deep learning for point cloud classification, Remote Sens., 12, 3713, 10.3390/rs12223713 · DOI
  15. Karantanellis, 2020, Object-based analysis using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for site-specific landslide assessment, Remote Sens., 12, 1711, 10.3390/rs12111711 · DOI
  16. Karpatne, 2019, Machine learning for the geosciences: challenges and opportunities, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 31, 1544, 10.1109/TKDE.2018.2861006 · DOI
  17. Kromer, 2019, Development and optimization of an automated fixed-location time lapse photogrammetric rock slope monitoring system, Remote Sens., 11, 1890, 10.3390/rs11161890 · DOI
  18. Lin, 2014, Eigen-feature analysis of weighted covariance matrices for LiDAR point cloud classification, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 94, 70, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.04.016 · DOI
  19. Matrone, 2020, Comparing machine and deep learning methods for large 3D heritage semantic segmentation, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 9, 535, 10.3390/ijgi9090535 · DOI
  20. Mayr, 2017, Object-based classification of terrestrial laser scanning point clouds for landslide monitoring, Photogramm. Rec., 32, 377, 10.1111/phor.12215 · DOI
  21. Mikita, 2020, Comparison of different remote sensing methods for 3D modeling of small rock outcrops, Sensors, 20, 1663, 10.3390/s20061663 · DOI
  22. Mills, 2015, Rock surface classification in a mine drift using multiscale geometric features, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 12, 1322, 10.1109/LGRS.2015.2398814 · DOI
  23. Morgenroth, 2019, An overview of opportunities for machine learning methods in underground rock engineering design, Geosciences, 9, 504, 10.3390/geosciences9120504 · DOI
  24. O’Banion, 2018, Suitability of structure from motion for rock-slope assessment, Photogramm. Rec., 33, 217, 10.1111/phor.12241 · DOI
  25. Özdemir, 2021, An efficient and general framework for aerial point cloud classification in urban scenarios, Remote Sens., 13, 1985, 10.3390/rs13101985 · DOI
  26. Pawluszek-Filipiak, 2020, On the importance of train–test split ratio of datasets in automatic landslide detection by supervised classification, Remote Sens., 12, 3054, 10.3390/rs12183054 · DOI
  27. Pawluszek-Filipiak, 2020, Investigating the effect of cross-modeling in landslide susceptibility mapping, Appl. Sci., 10, 6335, 10.3390/app10186335 · DOI
  28. Tuia, 2016, Domain adaptation for the classification of remote sensing data: an overview of recent advances, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., 4, 41, 10.1109/MGRS.2016.2548504 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Ullman, 1979, The interpretation of structure from motion, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 203, 405, 10.1098/rspb.1979.0006 · DOI
  30. Walton, 2016, An approach for automated lithological classification of point clouds, Geosphere, 12, 1833, 10.1130/GES01326.1 · DOI
  31. Walton, 2019, Extraction and comparison of spatial statistics for geometric parameters of sedimentary layers from static and mobile terrestrial laser scanning data, Environ. Eng. Geosci., 25, 155, 10.2113/EEG-2068 · DOI
  32. Wang, 2015, A multiscale and hierarchical feature extraction method for terrestrial laser scanning point cloud classification, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 53, 2409, 10.1109/TGRS.2014.2359951 · DOI
  33. Weidner, 2019, Classification methods for point clouds in rock slope monitoring: a novel machine learning approach and comparative analysis, Eng. Geol., 263, 105326, 10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105326 · DOI
  34. Weidner, 2020, Generalization considerations and solutions for point cloud hillslope classifiers, Geomorphology, 107039
  35. Weidner, 2021, Classifying rock slope materials in photogrammetric point clouds using robust color and geometric features, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 176, 15, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.04.001 · DOI
  36. Weinmann, 2015, Semantic point cloud interpretation based on optimal neighborhoods, relevant features and efficient classifiers, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 105, 286, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.01.016 · DOI
  37. Westoby, 2012, ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications, Geomorphology, 179, 300, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021 · DOI
  38. Wolpert, 1996, The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms, Neural Comput., 8, 1341, 10.1162/neco.1996.8.7.1341 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Weidner, L., & Walton, G.
Venue
Engineering Geology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
294
Pages
106344
ISSN
0013-7952
DOI
10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106344
Cited by
22
References
0
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Colorado Department of Transportation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review