Deep Learning–Based Scan-to-BIM Automation and Object Scope Expansion Using a Low-Cost 3D Scan Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To bridge the gap in as-built Building Information Model (BIM) creation between the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) community and the computer vision community, this paper presents an automated Scan-to-BIM framework for modeling both structural and nonstructural building components using a low-cost scanning data. The state-of-the-art instance-level semantic segmentation algorithm, SoftGroup, is adopted to classify individual building components. Detected wall segments are projected onto a two-dimensional (2D) XY grid, and an interest point detection algorithm, SuperPoint, is used to extract wall corner points. Subsequently, a series of refinement steps is proposed to generate the wall boundary. With optimized parameters, an intersection-over-union of 82.56% was achieved when tested on the benchmark Stanford Three-Dimensional (3D) Indoor Scene Data Set. Our results demonstrated the usability of the proposed wall boundary extraction to the incomplete and complex indoor scan data compared to an existing as-built modeling method. Instance-level segments and the refined wall boundary were combined to generate as-built BIM via parametric 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".