Semiautomatic Construction of 2-D Façade Footprints From Mobile LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although mobile light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has excellent potential in mapping street scenes, there is little research in constructing façade footprints from unorganized, uneven, and incomplete mobile LiDAR point clouds. In fact, façade footprint vectorization from mobile LiDAR data still involves a lot of manual work, especially in complex street scenes with various types of buildings. In this paper, we present a new and effective framework for extracting 2-D façade footprints from mobile LiDAR point clouds. The proposed framework consists of three steps: 1) line segment extraction from projected point clouds based on a hypotheses and selection strategy; 2) completion of missing parts between adjacent walls using line intersections; and 3) delineation of footprints through finding the least cost path in the graph of the line segments. We compare our method with several existing ones and discuss its robustness against data missing and noise such as nonwall structures and vegetation. Our proposed method is also tested in two large-scale data sets, a residential data set, and an urban data set. The coverage ratio, i.e., the percentage of outer wall points covered by the generated outlines in the residential data set is 93.4% and 91.7% in the urban data set is achieved. The mean distance between points of ground truth and constructed footprints for the residential data set and urban data set is 0.019 and 0.028 m, respectively. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework is effective in modeling various façade footprints from mobile LiDAR point clouds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".