MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245080366 · doi:10.1145/1833351.1778830

SmartBoxes for interactive urban reconstruction

2010· article· en· W4245080366 on OpenAlexaff
Liangliang Nan, Andrei Sharf, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen‐Or, Baoquan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Simple (philosophy)Key (lock)Point (geometry)Architectural modelScale (ratio)Term (time)Human–computer interactionTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArchitectureProgramming languageMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an interactive tool which enables a user to quickly assemble an architectural model directly over a 3D point cloud acquired from large-scale scanning of an urban scene. The user loosely defines and manipulates simple building blocks, which we call SmartBoxes, over the point samples. These boxes quickly snap to their proper locations to conform to common architectural structures. The key idea is that the building blocks are smart in the sense that their locations and sizes are automatically adjusted on-the-fly to fit well to the point data, while at the same time respecting contextual relations with nearby similar blocks. SmartBoxes are assembled through a discrete optimization to balance between two snapping forces defined respectively by a data-fitting term and a contextual term, which together assist the user in reconstructing the architectural model from a sparse and noisy point cloud. We show that a combination of the user's interactive guidance and high-level knowledge about the semantics of the underlying model, together with the snapping forces, allows the reconstruction of structures which are partially or even completely missing from the input.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207