EXTENSION OF RCC TOPOLOGICAL RELATIONS FOR 3D COMPLEX OBJECTS COMPONENTS EXTRACTED FROM 3D LIDAR POINT CLOUDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Topological relations are fundamental for qualitative description, querying and analysis of a 3D scene. Although topological relations for 2D objects have been extensively studied and implemented in GIS applications, their direct extension to 3D is very challenging and they cannot be directly applied to represent relations between components of complex 3D objects represented by 3D B-Rep models in R3. Herein we present an extended Region Connection Calculus (RCC) model to express and formalize topological relations between planar regions for creating 3D model represented by Boundary Representation model in R3. We proposed a new dimension extended 9-Intersection model to represent the basic relations among components of a complex object, including disjoint, meet and intersect. The last element in 3*3 matrix records the details of connection through the common parts of two regions and the intersecting line of two planes. Additionally, this model can deal with the case of planar regions with holes. Finally, the geometric information is transformed into a list of strings consisting of topological relations between two planar regions and detailed connection information. The experiments show that the proposed approach helps to identify topological relations of planar segments of point cloud automatically.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".