MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388971140 · doi:10.3390/rs15235493

Extraction of Roof Feature Lines Based on Geometric Constraints from Airborne LiDAR Data

2023· article· en· W4388971140 on OpenAlexaff
Zhan Cai, Hongchao Ma, Liang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHubei UniversityHubei University of Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLidarComputer scienceRemote sensingFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)RoofNormalization (sociology)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceRangingGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an active Earth observing system, which can directly acquire high-accuracy and dense building roof data. Thus, airborne LiDAR has become one of the mainstream source data for building detection and reconstruction. The emphasis for building reconstruction focuses on the accurate extraction of feature lines. Building roof feature lines generally include the internal and external feature lines. Efficient extraction of these feature lines can provide reliable and accurate information for constructing three-dimensional building models. Most related algorithms adopt intersecting the extracted planes fitted by the corresponding points. However, in these methods, the accuracy of feature lines mostly depends on the results of plane extraction. With the development of airborne LiDAR hardware, the point density is enough for accurate extraction of roof feature lines. Thus, after acquiring the results of building detection, this paper proposed a feature lines extraction strategy based on the geometric characteristics of the original airborne LiDAR data, tracking roof outlines, normal ridge lines, oblique ridge lines and valley lines successively. The final refined feature lines can be obtained by normalization. The experimental results showed that our methods can achieve several promising and reliable results with an accuracy of 0.291 m in the X direction, 0.295 m in the Y direction and 0.091 m in the H direction for outlines extraction. Further, the internal feature lines can be extracted with reliable visual effects using our method.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207