Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disaster damage detection through synergistic use of deep learning and 3D point cloud features derived from very high resolution oblique aerial images, and multiple-kernel-learning

Open access
Vetrivel, Anand, Gerke, Markus, Kerle, Norman, Nex, Francesco, Vosselman, George·2018·ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Abstract

Oblique aerial images offer views of both building roofs and facades, and thus have been recognized as a potential source to detect severe building damages caused by destructive disaster events such as earthquakes. Therefore, they represent an important source of information for first responders or other stakeholders involved in the post-disaster response process. Several automated methods based on supervised learning have already been demonstrated for damage detection using oblique airborne images. However, they often do not generalize well when data from new unseen sites need to be processed, hampering their practical use. Reasons for this limitation include image and scene characteristics, though the most prominent one relates to the image features being used for training the classifier. Recently features based on deep learning approaches, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have been shown to be more effective than conventional hand-crafted features, and have become the state-of-the-art in many domains, including remote sensing. Moreover, often oblique images are captured with high block overlap, facilitating the generation of dense 3D point clouds – an ideal source to derive geometric characteristics. We hypothesized that the use of CNN features, either independently or in combination with 3D point cloud features, would yield improved performance in damage detection. To this end we used CNN and 3D features, both independently and in combination, using images from manned and unmanned aerial platforms over several geographic locations that vary significantly in terms of image and scene characteristics. A multiple-kernel-learning framework, an effective way for integrating features from different modalities, was used for combining the two sets of features for classification. The results are encouraging: while CNN features produced an average classification accuracy of about 91%, the integration of 3D point cloud features led to an additional improvement of about 3% (i.e. an average classification accuracy of 94%). The significance of 3D point cloud features becomes more evident in the model transferability scenario (i.e., training and testing samples from different sites that vary slightly in the aforementioned characteristics), where the integration of CNN and 3D point cloud features significantly improved the model transferability accuracy up to a maximum of 7% compared with the accuracy achieved by CNN features alone. Overall, an average accuracy of 85% was achieved for the model transferability scenario across all experiments. Our main conclusion is that such an approach qualifies for practical use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.03.001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Achanta, 2012, SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 34, 2274, 10.1109/TPAMI.2012.120 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Arivazhagan, 2006, Texture classification using Gabor wavelets based rotation invariant features, Pattern Recogn. Lett., 27, 1976, 10.1016/j.patrec.2006.05.008 · DOI
  3. Bengio, 2013, Representation learning: a review and new perspectives, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 35, 1798, 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bucak, 2014, Multiple kernel learning for visual object recognition: a review, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 36, 1354, 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.212 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cao, Z., Principe, J.C., Ouyang, B., 2015. Group feature selection in image classification with multiple kernel learning. In: 2015 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1–5. · DOI
  6. Castelluccio, M., Poggi, G., Sansone, C., Verdoliva, L., 2015. Land use classification in remote sensing images by convolutional neural networks, arXiv:1508.00092 [cs.CV]. · arXiv
  7. Cheng, 2016, A survey on object detection in optical remote sensing images, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens., 117, 11, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.03.014 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Dell'Acqua, 2012, Remote sensing and earthquake damage assessment: experiences, limits, and perspectives, Proc. IEEE, 100, 2876, 10.1109/JPROC.2012.2196404 · DOI
  9. Dong, 2013, A comprehensive review of earthquake-induced building damage detection with remote sensing techniques, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens., 84, 85, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.06.011 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fernandez Galarreta, 2015, UAV-based urban structural damage assessment using object-based image analysis and semantic reasoning, Natl. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1087, 10.5194/nhess-15-1087-2015 · DOI
  11. Ferraz, 2014, Object recognition based on bag of features and a new local pattern descriptor, Int. J. Pattern Recognit Artif Intell., 28, 1, 10.1142/S0218001414550106 · DOI
  12. Fu, 2016, Visual cortex inspired CNN model for feature construction in text analysis, Frontiers Comput. Neurosci., 10, 1
  13. Gerke, 2011, Automatic structural seismic damage assessment with airborne oblique Pictometry© imagery, Photogrammetric Eng. Remote Sens., 77, 885, 10.14358/PERS.77.9.885 · DOI
  14. Gevaert, 2016, Classification of informal settlements through the integration of 2D and 3D features extracted from UAV data, ISPRS Ann. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., III-3, 317, 10.5194/isprs-annals-III-3-317-2016 · DOI
  15. Golovinskiy, A., Kim, V.G., Funkhouser, T., 2009. Shape-based recognition of 3D point clouds in urban environments. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2154–2161. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gönen, 2011, Multiple kernel learning algorithms, J. Mach. Learning Res., 12, 2211
  17. Gu, 2015, A novel MKL model of integrating LIDAR data and MSI for urban area classification, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 53, 5312, 10.1109/TGRS.2015.2421051 · DOI
  18. Hackel, 2016, Fast semantic segmentation of 3D point clouds with strongly varying density, ISPRS Ann. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., Prague, Czech Republic, 3, 177
  19. Han, 2014, Overcome support vector machine diagnosis overfitting, Cancer Inf., 13, 145
  20. Hu, 2015, Transferring deep convolutional neural networks for the scene classification of high-resolution remote sensing imagery, Remote Sens., 7, 14680, 10.3390/rs71114680 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Katz, 2007, Direct visibility of point sets, ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 26, 10.1145/1276377.1276407 · DOI
  22. Kerle, 2013, Collaborative damage mapping for emergency response: the role of cognitive systems engineering, Natl. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. (NHESS), 13, 97, 10.5194/nhess-13-97-2013 · DOI
  23. Khoshelham, 2013, Segment-based classification of damaged building roofs in aerial laser scanning data, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 10, 1258, 10.1109/LGRS.2013.2257676 · DOI
  24. Kim, Y., 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv:1408.5882v2 [cs.CL]. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Li, 2011, An improved approach of information extraction for earthquake-damaged buildings using high-resolution imagery, J. Earthquake Tsunami, 05, 389, 10.1142/S1793431111001157 · DOI
  26. Ma, 2016, An automatic procedure for early disaster change mapping based on optical remote sensing, Remote Sens., 8, 10.3390/rs8040272 · DOI
  27. Narayanan, A., Chandramohan, M., Chen, L., Liu, Y., Saminathan, S., 2016. Adaptive and scalable android malware detection through online learning. arXiv:1606.08928 [cs.LG]. · DOI
  28. Nex, 2014, UAV for 3D mapping applications: a review, Appl. Geomatics, 6, 1, 10.1007/s12518-013-0120-x · DOI · Paper page
  29. Rakotomamonjy, 2008, Simple MKL, J. Mach. Learning Res., 9, 2491
  30. Samadzadegan, 2008, Automatic detection and classification of damaged buildings, using high resolution satellite imagery and vector data, Int. Arch. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., 37, 415
  31. Sherrah, J., 2016. Fully convolutional networks for dense semantic labelling of high-resolution aerial imagery. arXiv:1606.02585 [cs.CV]. · arXiv
  32. Szegedy, 2015, Going deeper with convolutions, Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognit., 1
  33. Tang, Y., 2013. Deep learning using linear support vector machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.0239. · arXiv
  34. Tian, 2013, A review on image feature extraction and representation techniques, Int. J. Multimedia Ubiquitous Eng., 8, 385
  35. Tu, 2016, Automatic building damage detection method using high-resolution remote sensing images and 3D GIS model, ISPRS Ann. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., III-8, 43, 10.5194/isprs-annals-III-8-43-2016 · DOI
  36. Velizhev, 2012, Implicit shape models for object detection in 3D point clouds, ISPRS Ann. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., I-3, 179, 10.5194/isprsannals-I-3-179-2012 · DOI
  37. Vetrivel, 2016, Potential of multi-temporal oblique airborne imagery for structural damage assessment, ISPRS Ann. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., III-3, 355, 10.5194/isprs-annals-III-3-355-2016 · DOI
  38. Vetrivel, 2015, Identification of damage in buildings based on gaps in 3D point clouds from very high resolution oblique airborne images, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens., 105, 61, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.03.016 · DOI
  39. Vetrivel, 2015, Segmentation of UAV-based images incorporating 3D point cloud information, Int. Arch. Photogrammetry, Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XL-3/W2, 261, 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-3-W2-261-2015 · DOI
  40. Vetrivel, 2016, Identification of structurally damaged areas in airborne oblique images using a visual-bag-of-words approach, Remote Sens., 8, 10.3390/rs8030231 · DOI
  41. Weinmann, 2015, Semantic point cloud interpretation based on optimal neighborhoods, relevant features and efficient classifiers, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens., 105, 286, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.01.016 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Weinmann, M., Mallet, C., Bredif, M., 2016. Detection, segmentation and localization of individual trees from mms point cloud data. In: GEOBIA 2016: Solutions and Synergies., University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation (ITC). · DOI
  43. Xu, 2010, Object classification of aerial images with bag-of-visual words, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 7, 366, 10.1109/LGRS.2009.2035644 · DOI
  44. Zeiler, 2014, Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks, Eur. Conf. Comput. Vision, 818
  45. Zhou, 2015, Weakly supervised target detection in remote sensing images based on transferred deep features and negative bootstrapping, Multidimension. Syst. Signal Process., 1

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Vetrivel, A., Gerke, M., Kerle, N., Nex, F., & Vosselman, G.
Venue
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
140
Pages
45-59
ISSN
0924-2716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2593771152
Cited by
330
References
2
FWCI
34.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.