MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385761006 · doi:10.5194/ica-abs-6-38-2023

Digital twins of building extraction from dual-channel airborne LiDAR point clouds

2023· article· en· W4385761006 on OpenAlexaff
Yiping Chen, Huifang Feng, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts of the ICA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLidarPoint cloudRemote sensingExtraction (chemistry)Channel (broadcasting)Dual (grammatical number)Environmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsArtChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new dual-channel airborne LiDAR system can acquire dense point clouds of roofs and facades at the same time, RIEGL VQ-1560i has the most advanced dual-channel LiDAR system with unique and innovative bi-directional scanning angles, which provides better building instance extraction than traditional Scanner for more complete and precise data.This abstract presents the first point cloud building extraction for urban digital twins using dual-channel airborne LiDAR data.The main challenges of this lidar data are the large number of points, complex data structure, and multiple classes of objects.We propose a preprocessing-free architectural extraction method.It consists of three steps, namely point cloud slicing, projection, and constraint-based extraction of labels.Point cloud slices consist of top-down merging of elevation and 3D semantic segmentation to reorganize point cloud scenes into interrelated point groups.This greatly reduces the processing difficulty and computational burden of complex structures while removing multiple classes of non-building points.Second, we project the point group into an image to further reduce computational complexity while improving processing efficiency.Finally, we label the building with its up-down relationship and remap it as a 3D building.Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves an average recall rate of 95.36% and an average F1 score of 93.59%.For digital twin instance segmentation, the quality of the two public test scenarios reaches 92.86% and 98.31%, respectively.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstracts of the ICASame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207