# Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Aerial LiDAR Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation under Real Acquisition Conditions: A Case Study in Navarre Source: [Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Aerial LiDAR Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation under Real Acquisition Conditions: A Case Study in Navarre]() Collection index: [llms.txt]() Data updated: 2026-03-25T05:00:19.379Z Authors: Alex Salvatierra, Jos\\'e Antonio Sanz, Christian Guti\\'errez, Mikel Galar Published: 2026-03-23T17:26:41.000Z ## Abstract Recent advances in deep learning have significantly improved 3D semantic segmentation, but most models focus on indoor or terrestrial datasets. Their behavior under real aerial acquisition conditions remains insufficiently explored, and although a few studies have addressed similar scenarios, they differ in dataset design, acquisition conditions, and model selection. To address this gap, we conduct an experimental benchmark evaluating several state-of-the-art architectures on a large-scale aerial LiDAR dataset acquired under operational flight conditions in Navarre, Spain, covering heterogeneous urban, rural, and industrial landscapes. This study compares four representative deep learning models, including KPConv, RandLA-Net, Superpoint Transformer, and Point Transformer V3, across five semantic classes commonly found in airborne surveys, such as ground, vegetation, buildings, and vehicles, highlighting the inherent challenges of class imbalance and geometric variability in aerial data. Results show that all tested models achieve high overall accuracy exceeding 93%, with KPConv attaining the highest mean IoU (78.51%) through consistent performance across classes, particularly on challenging and underrepresented categories. Point Transformer V3 demonstrates superior performance on the underrepresented vehicle class (75.11% IoU), while Superpoint Transformer and RandLA-Net trade off segmentation robustness for computational efficiency. ## Recorded benchmark results A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage. ## Original sources and implementation [Original paper]() [PDF]()