Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 59, Issue 10, 1028007(2022)

Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud Classification Based on Attention Mechanism Point Convolutional Network

Liyuan Wang and Lihua Fu*
Author Affiliations
  • School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, Hubei , China
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(14)
    Comparison schematic of regular 2D image and point cloud. (a) Image grid; (b) point cloud
    Schematic of point cloud in local area
    U-Net(PointConv) schematic of semantic segmentation of point cloud
    Schematic of attention mechanism module structure
    Point cloud convolutional network based on attention mechanism (PCNNAM)
    GML_DataSetA. (a) Schematic of training set; (b) schematic of test set
    Classification results of test set under different networks and the real distribution diagram of GML_DataSetA data set
    • Table 1. All kinds of point cloud distribution in GML_DataSetA training set and test set

      View table

      Table 1. All kinds of point cloud distribution in GML_DataSetA training set and test set

      Data setGroundBuildingTreeLow vegetationAll
      Train set55714298244381677350931072156
      Test set439989195925318527758999191
    • Table 2. Confusion matrix of classification results in test set obtained by PCNNAM

      View table

      Table 2. Confusion matrix of classification results in test set obtained by PCNNAM

      ClassGroundBuildingTreeLow vegetation
      Ground428997222868621900
      Building4499117482540805
      Tree2697552104973742293
      Low vegetation253959132831345
      Precision0.9750.600.9350.173
      Recall0.9270.5940.9750.212
      F1 score0.9500.5970.9550.191
    • Table 3. Classification results under different coefficients for class balance

      View table

      Table 3. Classification results under different coefficients for class balance

      ParameterNoneα=1.1α=1.2α=1.3α=1.4α=1.5
      Overall accuracy0.8740.8600.9400.9120.9110.788
      Overall F1 score0.4870.4870.6730.5590.5970.468
    • Table 4. Classification results of the GML_DataSetA test set under different networks

      View table

      Table 4. Classification results of the GML_DataSetA test set under different networks

      MethodDensity weightedAttentional mechanismF1 scoreOAAverage F1 score
      GroundBuildingTreeLow vegetation
      PointNet++××0.83200.83800.8230.417
      U-Net(PointConv)×0.9370.3790.9080.1220.8950.587
      PCNNAM0.9500.5970.9550.1910.9400.673
    • Table 5. Distribution of various point clouds in the ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic marker benchmark data set

      View table

      Table 5. Distribution of various point clouds in the ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic marker benchmark data set

      CategoryTrain setTest set
      All753876411722
      Power line546600
      Low vegetation18085098690
      Impermeable surface193723101986
      Car46143708
      Fence12070742
      Roof152045109048
      Building surface2725011224
      Shrub4760524818
      Tree13517354226
    • Table 6. Confusion matrix of classification results for ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic marker benchmark data set obtained by PCNNAM

      View table

      Table 6. Confusion matrix of classification results for ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic marker benchmark data set obtained by PCNNAM

      CategoryPower lineLow vegetationImpermeable surfaceCarFenceRoofBuilding surfaceShrubTree
      Power line32810007632190
      Low vegetation0775869983154528113740766842211
      Impermeable surface07159941833692238223361
      Car0121113243930294462510
      Fence0729107461704289103759778
      Roof124141612631239535768314509765
      Building surface146427541501826461115962369
      Shrub0353721416110731513344113646612
      Tree38445544257740259538846635
      Precision0.6990.8430.8980.8340.4210.9410.7200.3650.680
      Recall0.5470.7860.9230.6580.2300.8740.4110.4580.860
      F1 score0.6140.8340.9110.7360.2970.9070.5230.4060.759
    • Table 7. Comparison of the results of PCNNAM and other experiments published by the ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic markup competition

      View table

      Table 7. Comparison of the results of PCNNAM and other experiments published by the ISPRS Vaihingen 3D semantic markup competition

      MethodF1 scoreOAAverage F1 score
      Power lineLow vegetationImpermeable surfaceCarFenceRoofBuilding surfaceShrubTree
      UM0.4610.7900.8910.4770.0520.9200.5270.4090.7790.8080.590
      WhuY30.3710.8140.9010.6340.2390.9340.4750.3990.7800.8230.616
      LUH0.5960.7750.9110.7310.3400.9420.5630.4660.8310.8160.684
      BIJW0.1380.7850.9050.5640.3630.9220.5320.4330.7840.8150.603
      RIT_10.3750.7790.9150.7340.1800.9400.4930.4590.8250.8160.633
      NANJ0.6200.8880.9120.6670.4070.9360.4260.5590.8260.8520.693
      WhuY40.4250.8270.9140.7470.5370.9430.5310.4790.8280.8490.692
      U-Net (PointConv)0.6140.8340.9110.7360.2970.9070.5230.4060.7590.8120.663
      Propoosed method0.5890.8090.9020.7400.3190.9110.5870.4350.7680.81240.673
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    Liyuan Wang, Lihua Fu. Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud Classification Based on Attention Mechanism Point Convolutional Network[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(10): 1028007

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category: Remote Sensing and Sensors

    Received: Feb. 23, 2021

    Accepted: May. 27, 2021

    Published Online: May. 16, 2022

    The Author Email: Fu Lihua (lihuafu@cug.edu.cn)

    DOI:10.3788/LOP202259.1028007

    Topics