MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012574980 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2020.2995732

Curved Buildings Reconstruction From Airborne LiDAR Data by Matching and Deforming Geometric Primitives

2020· article· en· W3012574980 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudLidarUpsamplingImage warpingRangingGeometric primitiveMatching (statistics)GraphGeometric modelingSolid modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data are widely applied in building reconstruction, with studies reporting success in typical buildings. However, the reconstruction of curved buildings remains an open research problem. To this end, we propose a new framework for curved building reconstruction via assembling and deforming geometric primitives. The input LiDAR point clouds are first converted into contours where individual buildings are identified. After recognizing geometric units (primitives) from building contours, we get initial models by matching the basic geometric primitives to these primitives. To polish assembly models, we employ a warping field for model refinements. Specifically, an embedded deformation (ED) graph is constructed via downsampling the initial model. Then, the point to model displacements is minimized by adjusting node parameters in the ED graph based on our objective function. The presented framework is validated on several highly curved buildings collected by various LiDAR in different cities. The experimental results, as well as accuracy comparison, demonstrate the advantage and effectiveness of our method. The new insight attributes to an efficient reconstruction manner. Moreover, we prove that the primitive-based framework significantly reduces the data storage to 10%-20% of classical mesh models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207