MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407456984 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3536169

Enhanced 3-D Urban Scene Reconstruction and Point Cloud Densification Using Gaussian Splatting and Google Earth Imagery

2025· article· en· W4407456984 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle Gao, Dening Lu, Hongjie He, Linlin Xu, Jonathan Li, Zheng Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudCloud computingGaussianRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional urban scene reconstruction and modeling is a crucial research area. From a technical perspective, it is an interdisciplinary research area spanning computer vision, computer graphics, and photogrammetry. Its applications span across multiple disciplines including autonomous navigation with 3-D scene understanding, remote sensing/photogrammetry for the creation of 3-D maps from aerial/drone/satellite images, geographic information systems with urban digital twins, augmented and virtual reality with photorealistic scene reconstructions. Using Google Earth imagery, we create a 3-D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) model of the Waterloo region centered on the University of Waterloo, and are able to achieve view-synthesis results far exceeding previous 3-D view-synthesis results based on neural radiance fields (NeRFs)which we demonstrate in our benchmark. We also retrieve the 3-D geometry of the scene using the 3-D point cloud extracted from the 3DGS model, thereby reconstructing both the 3-D geometry and photorealistic lighting of the large-scale urban scene.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207