Building Extraction from Airborne LiDAR Data Based on Min-Cut and Improved Post-Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building extraction from LiDAR data has been an active research area, but it is difficult to discriminate between buildings and vegetation in complex urban scenes. A building extraction method from LiDAR data based on minimum cut (min-cut) and improved post-processing is proposed. To discriminate building points on the intersecting roof planes from vegetation, a point feature based on the variance of normal vectors estimated via low-rank subspace clustering (LRSC) technique is proposed, and non-ground points are separated into two subsets based on min-cut after filtering. Then, the results of building extraction are refined via improved post-processing using restricted region growing and the constraints of height, the maximum intersection angle and consistency. The maximum intersection angle constraint removes large non-building point clusters with narrow width, such as greenbelt along streets. Contextual information and consistency constraint are both used to eliminate inhomogeneity. Experiments of seven datasets, including five datasets provided by the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS), one dataset with high-density point data and one dataset with dense buildings, verify that most buildings, even with curved roofs, are successfully extracted by the proposed method, with over 94.1% completeness and a minimum 89.8% correctness at the per-area level. In addition, the proposed point feature significantly outperforms the comparison alternative and is less sensitive to feature threshold in complex scenes. Hence, the extracted building points can be used in various applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".