skip to main content
10.1145/3205326.3205355acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescasaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Large-scale 3D Point Cloud Classification Based On Feature Description Matrix By CNN

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Large-scale 3D Point cloud classification is a basic topic for various applications. Traditional geometries features are usually independent of each other and difficult to adapt to a fixed classification model. With the rise of the neural network, deep learning is considered in 3D point cloud application. 3D points are difficult to feed the neural network directly based on deep learning, as they cannot be arranged in a fixed order as image pixels. In this paper, we combine traditional feature-based methods with the Convolutional neural network(CNN) to finish the classification task. The core idea is to construct a feasible structure called Feature Description Matrix(FDM) which encapsulates the local feature of the point to feed CNN for training and testing. By extracting geometry features and designed Feature Description Vectors(FDV) for FDM, a simple mechanism for point cloud classification is given, and experiments validate the effectiveness of our method, with higher classification accuracy compared to state-of-art works.

References

  1. A. S. Antonarakis, K. S. Richards, J. Brasington, and E. Muller. 2010. Determining leaf area index and leafy tree roughness using terrestrial laser scanning. Water Resources Research 46, 6 (2010), 346--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Alexandre Boulch, Bertrand Le Saux, and Nicolas Audebert. 2017. Unstructured Point Cloud Semantic Labeling Using Deep Segmentation Networks. In Eurographics Workshop on 3D Object Retrieval, Ioannis Pratikakis, Florent Dupont, and Maks Ovsjanikov (Eds.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 1 (Oct. 2001), 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Brodu and D. Lague. 2012. 3D terrestrial lidar data classification of complex natural scenes using a multi-scale dimensionality criterion: Applications in geomorphology. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 68 (2012), 121--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. 1995. Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning 20, 3 (1995), 273--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thomas M Cover and Peter E Hart. 1967. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 1 (1967), 21--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Engelcke, D. Rao, D. Zeng Wang, C. Hay Tong, and I. Posner. 2016. Vote3Deep: Fast Object Detection in 3D Point Clouds Using Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks. ArXiv e-prints (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R. A. Fisher. 1936. The Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems. Annals of Eugenics 7, 7 (1936), 179--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Yoav Freund and Robert E Schapire. 1997. A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of On-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting. symposium on the theory of computing 55, 1 (1997), 119--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sam Friedman and Ioannis Stamos. 2013. Online Detection of Repeated Structures in Point Clouds of Urban Scenes for Compression and Registration. International Journal of Computer Vision 102, 1--3 (2013), 112--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Paul Guerrero, Yanir aKleiman, Maks Ovsjanikov, and Niloy J. Mitra. 2018. PCP-NET: Learning Local Shape Properties from Raw Point Clouds. Computer Graphics Forum (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kan Guo, Dongqing Zou, and Xiaowu Chen. 2015. 3D Mesh Labeling via Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 1 (2015), 3:1--3:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Timo Hackel, N. Savinov, L. Ladicky, Jan D. Wegner, K. Schindler, and M. Pollefeys. 2017. SEMANTIC3D.NET: A new large-scale point cloud classification benchmark. In ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. IV-1-W1. 91--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Wen Hao and Yinghui Wang. 2014. Classification-based scene modeling for urban point clouds. Optical Engineering 53, 3 (2014), 033110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. George L. Heritage and David J. Milan. 2009. Terrestrial Laser Scanning of grain roughness in a gravel-bed river. Geomorphology 113, 1 (2009), 4--11. Understanding earth surface processes from remotely sensed digital terrain models.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jing Huang and Suya You. 2016. Point cloud labeling using 3D Convolutional Neural Network. In 2016 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). 2670--2675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. George H John and Pat Langley. 1995. Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. uncertainty in artificial intelligence (1995), 338--345. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hema Swetha Koppula, Abhishek Anand, Thorsten Joachims, and Ashutosh Saxena. 2011. Semantic Labeling of 3D Point Clouds for Indoor Scenes. In NIPS. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Richard Labourdette and Richard R. Jones. 2007. Characterization of fluvial architectural elements using a three-dimensional outcrop data set: Escanilla braided system, South-Central Pyrenees, Spain. Geosphere 3, 6 (2007), 422--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ee Hui Lim and David Suter. 2009. 3D terrestrial LIDAR classifications with super-voxels and multi-scale Conditional Random Fields. Computer-Aided Design 41, 10 (2009), 701--710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. F. Liu, S. Li, L. Zhang, C. Zhou, R. Ye, Y. Wang, and J. Lu. 2017. 3DCNN-DQN-RNN: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Framework for Semantic Parsing of Large-scale 3D Point Clouds. ICCV (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzo Luciano and A. Ben Hamza. 2017. Deep learning with geodesic moments for 3D shape classification. Pattern Recognition Letters (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Martinovic, J. Knopp, H. Riemenschneider, and L. Van Gool. 2015. 3D all the way: Semantic segmentation of urban scenes from start to end in 3D. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 4456--4465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David J. Milan, George L. Heritage, and David Hetherington. 2007. Application of a 3D laser scanner in the assessment of erosion and deposition volumes and channel change in a proglacial river. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms 32, 11 (2007), 1657--1674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Joanna M Nield, Giles F. S Wiggs, and Robert S Squirrell. 2015. Aeolian sand strip mobility and protodune development on a drying beach: examining surface moisture and surface roughness patterns measured by terrestrial laser scanning. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms 36, 4 (2015), 513--522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Mustafa Ozuysal, Pascal Fua, and Vincent Lepetit. 2007. Fast Keypoint Recognition in Ten Lines of Code. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2007), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Danil Prokhorov. 2010. A Convolutional Learning System for Object Classification in 3-D Lidar Data. Trans. Neur. Netw. 21, 5 (May 2010), 858--863. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2017. PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. CVPR (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2017. PointNet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space. NIPS (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J R Quinlan. 1986. Induction of Decision Trees. Machine Learning 1, 1 (1986), 81--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Martin A Riedmiller and H Braun. 1993. A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation learning: the RPROP algorithm. 1 (1993), 586--591.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. F. Rottensteiner, G. Sohn, J. Jung, M. Gerke, C. Baillard, S. Benitez, and U. Breitkopf. 2012. THE ISPRS BENCHMARK ON URBAN OBJECT CLASSIFICATION AND 3D BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences I-3 (2012), 293--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Su, A. Srivastava, and F.W. Huffer. 2013. Detection, classification and estimation of individual shapes in 2D and 3D point clouds. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 58 (2013), 227--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Peng-Shuai Wang, Yang Liu, Yu-Xiao Guo, Chun-Yu Sun, and Xin Tong. 2017. O-CNN: Octree-based Convolutional Neural Networks for 3D Shape Analysis. ACM Transactions on Graphics 36, 4 (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Z. Wang, L. Zhang, T. Fang, P. T. Mathiopoulos, X. Tong, H. Qu, Z. Xiao, F. Li, and D. Chen. 2015. A Multiscale and Hierarchical Feature Extraction Method for Terrestrial Laser Scanning Point Cloud Classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 53, 5 (May 2015), 2409--2425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Martin Weinmann, Boris Jutzi, Stefan Hinz, and Clment Mallet. 2015. Semantic point cloud interpretation based on optimal neighborhoods, relevant features and efficient classifiers. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 105 (2015), 286--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Martin Weinmann, Boris Jutzi, and Clément Mallet. 2014. Semantic 3D scene interpretation: A framework combining optimal neighborhood size selection with relevant features. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences II-3 (2014), 181--188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhirong Wu, S. Song, A. Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and J. Xiao. 2015. 3D ShapeNets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In CVPR. 1912--1920.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Bisheng Yang, Zhen Dong, Yuan Liu, Fuxun Liang, and Yongjun Wang. 2017. Computing multiple aggregation levels and contextual features for road facilities recognition using mobile laser scanning data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 126, Supplement C (2017), 180--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Liangpei Zhang, Xin Huang, Bo Huang, and Pingxiang Li. 2006. A pixel shape index coupled with spectral information for classification of high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44, 10 (Oct 2006), 2950--2961.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Tong, P. T. Mathiopoulos, B. Guo, X. Huang, Z. Wang, and Y. Wang. 2016. A Multilevel Point-Cluster-Based Discriminative Feature for ALS Point Cloud Classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 54, 6 (June 2016), 3309--3321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Large-scale 3D Point Cloud Classification Based On Feature Description Matrix By CNN

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        CASA 2018: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Animation and Social Agents
        May 2018
        101 pages
        ISBN:9781450363761
        DOI:10.1145/3205326

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 May 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        CASA 2018 Paper Acceptance Rate18of110submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate18of110submissions,16%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader