Critical Points Extraction from Building Façades by Analyzing Gradient Structure Tensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a building façade contouring method from LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) scans and photogrammetric point clouds. To this end, we calculate the confidence property at multiple scales for an individual point cloud to measure the point cloud’s quality. The confidence property is utilized in the definition of the gradient for each point. We encode the individual point gradient structure tensor, whose eigenvalues reflect the gradient variations in the local neighborhood areas. The critical point clouds representing the building façade and rooftop (if, of course, such rooftops exist) contours are then extracted by jointly analyzing dual-thresholds of the gradient and gradient structure tensor. Based on the requirements of compact representation, the initial obtained critical points are finally downsampled, thereby achieving a tradeoff between the accurate geometry and abstract representation at a reasonable level. Various experiments using representative buildings in Semantic3D benchmark and other ubiquitous point clouds from ALS DublinCity and Dutch AHN3 datasets, MLS TerraMobilita/iQmulus 3D urban analysis benchmark, UAV-based photogrammetric dataset, and GeoSLAM ZEB-HORIZON scans have shown that the proposed method generates building contours that are accurate, lightweight, and robust to ubiquitous point clouds. Two comparison experiments also prove the superiority of the proposed method in terms of topological correctness, geometric accuracy, and representation compactness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".