4.7 Article

A Boundary Regulated Network for Accurate Roof Segmentation and Outline Extraction

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10081195

Keywords

roof segmentation; outline extraction; convolutional neural network; boundary regulated network; very high resolution imagery

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [16K18162]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601506]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M590730]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K18162] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The automatic extraction of building outlines from aerial imagery for the purposes of navigation and urban planning is a long-standing problem in the field of remote sensing. Currently, most methods utilize variants of fully convolutional networks (FCNs), which have significantly improved model performance for this task. However, pursuing more accurate segmentation results is still critical for additional applications, such as automatic mapping and building change detection. In this study, we propose a boundary regulated network called BR-Net, which utilizes both local and global information, to perform roof segmentation and outline extraction. The BR-Net method consists of a shared backend utilizing a modified U-Net and a multitask framework to generate predictions for segmentation maps and building outlines based on a consistent feature representation from the shared backend. Because of the restriction and regulation of additional boundary information, the proposed model can achieve superior performance compared to existing methods. Experiments on an aerial image dataset covering 32 km2 and containing more than 58,000 buildings indicate that our method performs well at both roof segmentation and outline extraction. The proposed BR-Net method significantly outperforms the classic FCN8s model. Compared to the state-of-the-art U-Net model, our BR-Net achieves 6.2% (0.869 vs. 0.818), 10.6% (0.772 vs. 0.698), and 8.7% (0.840 vs. 0.773) improvements in F1 score, Jaccard index, and kappa coefficient, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available