MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413175366 · doi:10.1017/dce.2025.10017

Autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles exploration for semantic indoor reconstruction using 3D Gaussian splatting

2025· article· en· W4413175366 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Xuan Zhang, Yilin Yang, Zhengbo Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueData-Centric Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionGaussianComputer graphics (images)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Keeping an up-to-date three-dimensional (3D) representation of buildings is a crucial yet time-consuming step for Building Information Modeling (BIM) and digital twins. To address this issue, we propose ICON (Intelligent CONstruction) drone, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to navigate indoor environments autonomously and generate point clouds. ICON drone is constructed using a 250 mm quadcopter frame, a Pixhawk flight controller, and is equipped with an onboard computer, an Red Green Blue-Depth camera and an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) sensor. The UAV navigates autonomously using visual-inertial odometer and frontier-based exploration. The collected RGB images during the flight are used for 3D reconstruction and semantic segmentation. To improve the reconstruction accuracy in weak-texture areas in indoor environments, we propose depth-regularized planar-based Gaussian splatting reconstruction, where we use monocular-depth estimation as extra supervision for weak-texture areas. The final outputs are point clouds with building components and material labels. We tested the UAV in three scenes in an educational building: the classroom, the lobby, and the lounge. Results show that the ICON drone could: (1) explore all three scenes autonomously, (2) generate absolute scale point clouds with F1-score of 0.5806, 0.6638, and 0.8167 compared to point clouds collected using a high-fidelity terrestrial LiDAR scanner, and (3) label the point cloud with corresponding building components and material with mean intersection over union of 0.588 and 0.629. The reconstruction algorithm is further evaluated on ScanNet, and results show that our method outperforms previous methods by a large margin on 3D reconstruction quality.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData-Centric EngineeringSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207