MATCHING AERIAL IMAGES TO 3D BUILDING MODELS BASED ON CONTEXT-BASED GEOMETRIC HASHING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this paper, a new model-to-image framework to automatically align a single airborne image with existing 3D building models using geometric hashing is proposed. As a prerequisite process for various applications such as data fusion, object tracking, change detection and texture mapping, the proposed registration method is used for determining accurate exterior orientation parameters (EOPs) of a single image. This model-to-image matching process consists of three steps: 1) feature extraction, 2) similarity measure and matching, and 3) adjustment of EOPs of a single image. For feature extraction, we proposed two types of matching cues, edged corner points representing the saliency of building corner points with associated edges and contextual relations among the edged corner points within an individual roof. These matching features are extracted from both 3D building and a single airborne image. A set of matched corners are found with given proximity measure through geometric hashing and optimal matches are then finally determined by maximizing the matching cost encoding contextual similarity between matching candidates. Final matched corners are used for adjusting EOPs of the single airborne image by the least square method based on co-linearity equations. The result shows that acceptable accuracy of single image's EOP can be achievable by the proposed registration approach as an alternative to labour-intensive manual registration process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".