MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409580893 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-076

Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology and Image-based Interaction Design in Architectural Space Design

2025· article· en· W4409580893 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Environment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Architectural designArtificial intelligenceEngineering drawingSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionArchitectural engineeringEngineeringArchitectureOperating systemVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of modern architectural design, the application of artificial intelligence technology and pictorial interaction design is gradually causing revolutionary changes. This paper explores how to integrate these advanced technologies into architectural space design with a view to improving design efficiency and enhancing user experience. Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) technology and BIM+VR technology are applied to architectural space design in general, where BIM+VR technology is used for visual modeling of architectural space design solutions and realizing 3D image interaction with users. Specifically, this paper proposes an intelligent assisted design method for architectural space based on Pointnet++ deep learning neural network and a simulation design method for 3D virtual architectural space to realize intelligent and personalized design of architectural space.The average class accuracy and overall assessment accuracy of Pointnet++ trained assessment points reached 83.47% and 76.63% respectively The design scheme given by this model has intelligence, objectivity and authenticity, which can better realize the intelligent assistance for architectural space design. In addition, the 3D virtual architectural space experience system constructed in this paper scores more than 90 points in all experience indicators, with good user experience performance, to meet the user’s image interaction needs, so as to provide a basis for the optimization of architectural space design.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicRegional Development and EnvironmentFrench-language works237,207