MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175466115 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2021.3087159

Building Instance Mapping From ALS Point Clouds Aided by Polygonal Maps

2021· article· en· W3175466115 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaobo Xia, Sheng Xu, Ruisheng Wang, Jonathan Li, Guanghui Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudPolygon (computer graphics)PreprocessorSegmentationFootprintMerge (version control)RoofArtificial intelligenceMatching (statistics)Computer visionData miningGeographyInformation retrievalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building region extraction from ALS point clouds has been widely studied, whereas instance-level building mapping has been overlooked and remains unsolved. In this study, we present a method to extract individual buildings from ALS point clouds with the help of widely accessible polygonal footprints. The key idea is to merge roof segments to a set of building candidates, from which correct instances are selected by finding optimal matches between polygonal footprints and building candidates. The method has three steps: roof segmentation, building candidate generation, and instance-polygon matching. The method is tested on two large-scale scenes of different building types and can generally achieve high instance-level building mapping accuracy (around 90%) when there are large positioning errors (6.0 m) among polygons. Future work will focus on classification errors in preprocessing, shape inconsistency between point clouds and polygons, and building footprint delineation and updating in postprocessing.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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