MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385200667 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2023.2236243

Large-Scale LoD2 Building Modeling using Deep Multimodal Feature Fusion

2023· article· en· W4385200667 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Faezeh Soleimani Vostikolaei, Shabnam Jabari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceScale (ratio)Deep learningBenchmark (surveying)Data mining3D city modelsMachine learningGeographyPattern recognition (psychology)CartographyVisualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s rapidly urbanizing world, accurate 3D city models are crucial for sustainable urban management. The existing technology for 3D city modeling still relies on an extensive amount of manual work and the provided solutions may vary depending on the urban structure of different places. According to the CityGML3 standard of 3D city modeling, in LoD2, the roof structures need to be modeled which is a challenging task due to the complexity and diversity of roof types. While high-resolution images can be utilized to classify roof types, they have difficulties in areas with poor contrast or shadows. This study proposes a deep learning approach that combines RGB optical and height information of buildings to improve the accuracy of roof type classification and automatically generate a 3D city model. The proposed methodology is divided into two phases: (1) classifying roof types into the nine most popular roof types in New Brunswick, Canada, using a multimodal feature fusion network, and (2) generating a large-scale LoD2 3D city model using a model-driven approach. The evaluation results show an overall accuracy of 97.58% and a Kappa coefficient of 0.9705 for the classification phase and an RMSE of 1.03 (m) for the 3D modeling.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207