Building3D: An Urban-Scale Dataset and Benchmarks for Learning Roof Structures from Point Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban modeling from LiDAR point clouds is an important topic in computer vision, computer graphics, photogrammetry and remote sensing. 3D city models have found a wide range of applications in smart cities, autonomous navigation, urban planning and mapping etc. However, existing datasets for 3D modeling mainly focus on common objects such as furniture or cars. Lack of building datasets has become a major obstacle for applying deep learning technology to specific domains such as urban modeling. In this paper, we present an urban-scale dataset consisting of more than 160 thousands buildings along with corresponding point clouds, mesh and wireframe models, covering 16 cities in Estonia about 998 Km2. We extensively evaluate performance of state-of-the-art algorithms including handcrafted and deep feature based methods. Experimental results indicate that Building3D has challenges of high intra-class variance, data imbalance and large-scale noises. The Building3D is the first and largest urban-scale building modeling benchmark, allowing a comparison of supervised and self-supervised learning methods. We believe that our Building3D will facilitate future research on urban modeling, aerial path planning, mesh simplification, and semantic/part segmentation etc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".