MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319786764 · doi:10.3390/buildings13020464

Near Real-Time 3D Reconstruction and Quality 3D Point Cloud for Time-Critical Construction Monitoring

2023· article· en· W4319786764 on OpenAlexaff
Zuguang Liu, Daeho Kim, Sang Hyun Lee, L. P. Zhou, Xuehui An, Meiyin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersState Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and EngineeringChina Scholarship CouncilTsinghua University
KeywordsPoint cloudRobustness (evolution)Benchmark (surveying)Computer scienceCloud computingReal-time computingOdometry3D reconstructionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionData miningSimulationRobotMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving the rapidity of 3D reconstruction is vital for time-critical construction tasks such as progress monitoring and hazard detection, but the majority of construction studies in this area have focused on improving its quality. We applied a Direct Sparse Odometry with Loop Closure (LDSO)-based 3D reconstruction method, improving the existing algorithm and tuning its hyper-parameter settings, to achieve both near real-time operation and quality 3D point cloud simultaneously. When validated using a benchmark dataset, the proposed method showed notable improvement in 3D point cloud density, as well as loop closure robustness, compared to the original LDSO. In addition, we conducted a real field test to validate the tuned LDSO’s accuracy and speed at both object and site scales, where we demonstrated our method’s near real-time operation and capability to produce a quality 3D point cloud comparable to that of the existing method. The proposed method improves the accessibility of the 3D reconstruction technique, which in turn helps construction professionals monitor their jobsite safety and progress in a more efficient manner.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207