Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds

Power corridor classification using LiDAR (light detection and ranging) point clouds is an important means for power line inspection. Many supervised classification methods have been used for classifying power corridor scenes, such as using random forest (RF) and JointBoost. However, these studies d...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shuwen Peng, Xiaohuan Xi, Cheng Wang, Pinliang Dong, Pu Wang, Sheng Nie
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-08-01
Series:Remote Sensing
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/17/1961
id doaj-96f4b9843c1c42cba1fd43d1ae06ce2e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-96f4b9843c1c42cba1fd43d1ae06ce2e2020-11-25T01:12:22ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922019-08-011117196110.3390/rs11171961rs11171961Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point CloudsShuwen Peng0Xiaohuan Xi1Cheng Wang2Pinliang Dong3Pu Wang4Sheng Nie5Key Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, ChinaKey Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, ChinaKey Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, ChinaDepartment of Geography and the Environment, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USAKey Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, ChinaKey Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, ChinaPower corridor classification using LiDAR (light detection and ranging) point clouds is an important means for power line inspection. Many supervised classification methods have been used for classifying power corridor scenes, such as using random forest (RF) and JointBoost. However, these studies did not systematically analyze all the relevant factors that affect the classification, including the class distribution, feature selection, classifier type and neighborhood radius for classification feature extraction. In this study, we examine these factors using point clouds collected by an airborne laser scanning system (ALS). Random forest shows strong robustness to various pylon types. When classifying complex scenes, the gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) shows good generalization. Synthetically, considering performance and efficiency, RF is very suitable for power corridor classification. This study shows that balanced learning leads to poor classification performance in the current scene. Data resampling for the original unbalanced dataset may not be necessary. The sensitivity analysis shows that the optimal neighborhood radius for feature extraction of different objects may be different. Scale invariance and automatic scale selection methods should be further studied. Finally, it is suggested that RF, original unbalanced class distribution, and complete feature set should be considered for power corridor classification in most cases.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/17/1961airborne laser scanningpower corridor classificationclass distributionfeature selectionrandom forest
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Shuwen Peng
Xiaohuan Xi
Cheng Wang
Pinliang Dong
Pu Wang
Sheng Nie
spellingShingle Shuwen Peng
Xiaohuan Xi
Cheng Wang
Pinliang Dong
Pu Wang
Sheng Nie
Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
Remote Sensing
airborne laser scanning
power corridor classification
class distribution
feature selection
random forest
author_facet Shuwen Peng
Xiaohuan Xi
Cheng Wang
Pinliang Dong
Pu Wang
Sheng Nie
author_sort Shuwen Peng
title Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
title_short Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
title_full Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
title_fullStr Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Comparison of Power Corridor Classification Methods from ALS Point Clouds
title_sort systematic comparison of power corridor classification methods from als point clouds
publisher MDPI AG
series Remote Sensing
issn 2072-4292
publishDate 2019-08-01
description Power corridor classification using LiDAR (light detection and ranging) point clouds is an important means for power line inspection. Many supervised classification methods have been used for classifying power corridor scenes, such as using random forest (RF) and JointBoost. However, these studies did not systematically analyze all the relevant factors that affect the classification, including the class distribution, feature selection, classifier type and neighborhood radius for classification feature extraction. In this study, we examine these factors using point clouds collected by an airborne laser scanning system (ALS). Random forest shows strong robustness to various pylon types. When classifying complex scenes, the gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) shows good generalization. Synthetically, considering performance and efficiency, RF is very suitable for power corridor classification. This study shows that balanced learning leads to poor classification performance in the current scene. Data resampling for the original unbalanced dataset may not be necessary. The sensitivity analysis shows that the optimal neighborhood radius for feature extraction of different objects may be different. Scale invariance and automatic scale selection methods should be further studied. Finally, it is suggested that RF, original unbalanced class distribution, and complete feature set should be considered for power corridor classification in most cases.
topic airborne laser scanning
power corridor classification
class distribution
feature selection
random forest
url https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/17/1961
work_keys_str_mv AT shuwenpeng systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
AT xiaohuanxi systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
AT chengwang systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
AT pinliangdong systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
AT puwang systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
AT shengnie systematiccomparisonofpowercorridorclassificationmethodsfromalspointclouds
_version_ 1725166813401055232