Full text: CMRT09

In: Stilla U, Rottensteiner F, Paparoditis N (Eds) CMRT09. IAPRS, Vol. XXXVIII, Part 3/W4 — Paris, France, 3-4 September, 2009 
(a) Champion, 2007 
(b) Matikainen et al., 2007 
(c) Rottensteiner, 2008 
Figure 2. Completeness (diamonds) and correctness (squares) of the detection results as a function of the building size [m 2 ]. 
of 20 m 2 in width. Note that the buildings from all the test areas 
for which results were submitted are combined in order to have 
a significant number of changes for each bin. The graphs for 
(Champion, 2007) and (Rottensteiner, 2008) also contain the 
results from the Toulouse area. The completeness and 
correctness rates, computed independently for each bin, are 
presented in Figure 2 and demonstrate the close relation 
between the quality of change detection and the change size. 
This is true for the completeness with (Champion, 2007) and 
(Rottensteiner, 2008), but it is even more obvious for the 
correctness in all three graphs. Correctness is particularly poor 
for buildings smaller than 100 m 2 . Looking at these graphs it 
becomes obvious that the two major problems observed in 
Section 4.1, namely the potentially critical rate of missed new 
buildings, which limits the qualitative effectiveness of change 
detection, and the poor correctness for demolished buildings are 
caused by the same underlying phenomenon i.e. the fact that 
small objects cannot be detected reliably by an automated 
procedure. Attentive readers may also notice that a very low 
correctness occurs with (Matikainen et al., 2007) with buildings 
covering about 235m 2 . It is caused by large ground areas in the 
Marseille test area that were mistakenly classified as above 
ground objects and then wrongly alerted as new buildings. 
4.3 Impact of the Quality of the Input Data 
Our experiments show that many FP cases are related to the 
quality of the input DSM. The correlation DSMs used in the 
imagery context contain a lot of erroneous height values, 
especially in shadow areas (where stereo-matching algorithms 
are known to have problems) that are almost systematically 
alerted as new buildings, as depicted in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 
3d. These errors contribute to lower the correctness rate, 
especially for new buildings, which drops to 63.5% with 
(Champion, 2007) in Marseille. The high rate of 96.3% 
obtained here with (Rottensteiner, 2008) may be related to the 
use of the initial description of the database as a priori 
information for producing and improving the building label 
image. In Toulouse, FP new buildings were also related to DSM 
errors, caused by repeating patterns. Another problem concerns 
the quantisation effects i.e. the fact that the numerical resolution 
of height values in the correlation DSM is restricted to the 
GSD, which for instance prevents the use of surface roughness 
as an input parameter for the Dempster-Shafer fusion process in 
(Rottensteiner, 2008) and ultimately contributes to lower the 
correctness rate for demolished buildings. 
Regarding the Lyngby test area, it was a problem that the 
original data were not available. Single points inside water areas 
were not eliminated from the data, but used in an interpolation 
process based on a triangulation of the LIDAR points, 
producing essentially meaningless data in these water areas that 
for example caused FP new cases with (Olsen and Knudsen, 
2005). The other problem was that first pulse (rather than last 
pulse) data were provided, which caused FPs in areas with 
dense vegetation, e.g. along rivers with (Rottensteiner, 2008). 
Combined with a relatively low resolution (1 m), these 
problems contribute to lower the correctness of the systems. 
4.4 Impact of Other Topographic Objects in the Scene 
In our experiments, some confusion occurs between buildings 
and other above-ground objects that are present in the scene and 
wrongly alerted as new buildings. Again, this contributes to 
lower the correctness achieved for new buildings. The methods 
deal with this problem, but currently they only focus on one 
class of above-ground objects that is to be separated from 
buildings, namely trees. In general, these trees are identified 
with indicators based on the NDVI and then eliminated, as 
shown in Section 3. Even though this strategy appears to be 
efficient, our experiments show that such confusions are not 
limited to vegetation but concern other objects that not 
considered in the approaches presented in this study. For 
instance, bridges or elevated roads are highlighted as FP new 
buildings in the Lyngby test area by (Rottensteiner, 2008) and 
(Olsen and Knudsen, 2005), as shown in Figures 3g and 3h. To 
limit the impact of these problems, two strategies could be 
considered in the future. The first one consists in developing 
more sophisticated methods that are capable of simultaneously 
extracting multiple object classes such as buildings, roads, and 
vegetation. Such methods would need to incorporate complex 
scene models that also consider the mutual interactions of the 
object classes in a scene. They could make use of recent 
developments in the field of Computer Vision that are related to 
the modelling context in image classification (Kumar and 
Hebert, 2006). The second strategy consists in using additional 
information on other objects, e.g. by incorporating an existing 
road database in the building change detection procedure. 
Additional Remark: Beyond the statistical aspects, our 
experiments show that the errors generated by the change 
detection approaches are often identical. Thus, the FP cases that 
occur in the Marseille test area because of the DSM 
inaccuracies (Section 4.3) are both present in the outcomes of 
(Matikainen et al., 2007) and (Champion, 2007), as illustrated 
in Figures 3a and 3b respectively. Some of other errors shared 
at least by two approaches are also illustrated in Figure 3. 
5. CONCLUSION 
Four building change detection approaches have been tested in 
three different contexts. If the satellite context appears to be the 
most challenging for the current state-of-the-art, the aerial 
context and the LIDAR context appear to be a viable basis for 
building an operative system in the future. Thus, the high
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.