AUTOMATIC EXTRACTION AND REGULARIZATION OF BUILDING OUTLINES FROM AIRBORNE LIDAR POINT CLOUDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Building outlines are needed for various applications like urban planning, 3D city modelling and updating cadaster. Their automatic reconstruction, e.g. from airborne laser scanning data, as regularized shapes is therefore of high relevance. Today’s airborne laser scanning technology can produce dense 3D point clouds with high accuracy, which makes it an eligible data source to reconstruct 2D building outlines or even 3D building models. In this paper, we propose an automatic building outline extraction and regularization method that implements a trade-off between enforcing strict shape restriction and allowing flexible angles using an energy minimization approach. The proposed procedure can be summarized for each building as follows: (1) an initial building outline is created from a given set of building points with the alpha shape algorithm; (2) a Hough transform is used to determine the main directions of the building and to extract line segments which are oriented accordingly; (3) the alpha shape boundary points are then repositioned to both follow these segments, but also to respect their original location, favoring long line segments and certain angles. The energy function that guides this trade-off is evaluated with the Viterbi algorithm.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".