← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.10644 · v1
Agent2BIM: A Systematic Evaluation of Reality-Capture Configurations and Prior Models for As-Built Modeling
首次提交 2026-11-07 18:31
版本更新 2026-11-07 18:31
雷达观测 2026-11-10 11:14
摘要
AI agents can generate as-built Building Information Models (BIMs) from reality-capture data, but the evidence required for accurate reconstruction remains unclear. This paper presents Agent2BIM, an agent-based Scan-to-BIM framework, and evaluates seven capture configurations in a research laboratory and a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) scene. Inputs include 360° panoramas, smartphone video, smartphone LiDAR, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), TLS with posed panoramas, and imagery supplemented by prior IFC models. Outputs are compared against TLS-verified reference models for component detection, geometric accuracy, and MEP connectivity. In the laboratory, component recall ranged from 84% to 100%, but only 9% of components reconstructed from panoramas were within 20 cm of their reference positions, compared with 86% using smartphone LiDAR. In the MEP scene, scale-free inputs recovered 11 - 43% of components, versus 75 - 93% for metric inputs. Prior IFC models improved MEP reconstruction but could propagate inaccuracies. The results highlight the complementary roles of visual and metric evidence in agent-based Scan-to-BIM.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-07 18:31 · 最新观测版本
Agent2BIM: A Systematic Evaluation of Reality-Capture Configurations and Prior Models for As-Built Modeling
AI agents can generate as-built Building Information Models (BIMs) from reality-capture data, but the evidence required for accurate reconstruction remains unclear. This paper presents Agent2BIM, an agent-based Scan-to-BIM framework, and evaluates seven capture configurations in a research laboratory and a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) scene. Inputs include 360° panoramas, smartphone video, smartphone LiDAR, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), TLS with posed panoramas, and imagery supplemented by prior IFC models. Outputs are compared against TLS-verified reference models for component detection, geometric accuracy, and MEP connectivity. In the laboratory, component recall ranged from 84% to 100%, but only 9% of components reconstructed from panoramas were within 20 cm of their reference positions, compared with 86% using smartphone LiDAR. In the MEP scene, scale-free inputs recovered 11 - 43% of components, versus 75 - 93% for metric inputs. Prior IFC models improved MEP reconstruction but could propagate inaccuracies. The results highlight the complementary roles of visual and metric evidence in agent-based Scan-to-BIM.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗