AN UNSUPERVISED REGISTRATION OF 3D POINT CLOUDS TO 2D CAD MODEL: A CASE STUDY OF FLOOR PLAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Thanks to the proliferation of commodity 3D devices such as HoloLens, one can have easy access to the 3D model of indoor building objects. However, this model does not match 2D available computer-aided design (CAD) models as the as-built model. To address this problem, in this study, a 3-step registration method is proposed. First, binary images, including walls and background, are generated for the 3D point cloud (PC) and the 2D CAD model. Then, 2D-to-2D corresponding pixels (CPs) are extracted based on the intersection of walls in each binary image of PC (BIPC) and binary CAD (BCAD) model. Since the 3D PC space coordinates (XYZ) of all BIPC's pixels are known, BIPC part of the 2D-to-2D CPs can be considered 3D. Lastly, the parameters of the 8-parameter affine are estimated using the 2D-to-3D CPs, which are pixel coordinates in BCAD model as well as their correspondences in the 3D PC space. Experimental results indicate the efficiency of our proposed method compared to manual registration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".