2.1. Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), exploration, and trajectory-planning

For robots to navigate autonomously in an unknown environment, there are three key modules: localization, path planning, and exploration. Given that most indoor environments have no GPS signals, SLAM is the most suitable approach for localization. In a SLAM problem, the robot observes the surrounding environment using sensors like ranging sensors (e.g., LiDARs) and RGB cameras, and estimates its current location based on past observations.

SLAM systems can be roughly divided into two categories: LiDAR-based SLAM and vision-based SLAM. LiDAR-based SLAM is uncommon on UAV systems given UAV’s limited payload. Therefore, we focus on visual-based SLAM, which only needs lighter and cheaper sensors (i.e., cameras). MonoSLAM (Davison et al., Reference Davison, Reid, Molton and Stasse2007) is the first SLAM system using only a monocular camera, which opened the possibility for visual-only SLAM. The ORB-SLAM series (Tardós, Reference Mur-Artal, Montiel and Tardós2015; Mur-Artal and Tardós, Reference Mur-Artal and Tardós2017; Campos et al., Reference Campos, Elvira, Rodríguez, José and Tardós2021) further improved the performance of visual-only SLAM. However, visual-only SLAM does not provide absolute-scale odometry, and the system easily fails when the visual input changes dramatically. To address these issues, researchers integrated IMUs into the existing camera setup for SLAM, commonly known as VIO.

After localizing the UAV, we can investigate its exploration. For our interest in point cloud acquisition, we focus on coverage path planning (CPP), which is to find a path that avoids all obstacles and maximizes area coverage while optimizing travel time, processing time, energy cost, number of turns, and other parameters (e.g., reconstruction quality). Navigation in unknown environments requires online CCP, which updates the exploration strategy while the UAV is navigating and observing new information (e.g., RGB images and depth images). In other words, the algorithm will update the viewpoints and a suitable path based on the real-time information. In this article, we use frontier-based methods. First introduced by Yamauchi (Yamauchi, Reference Yamauchi1997), frontiers are calculated in areas that are unoccupied by obstacles, and the robot is prompted to move toward frontiers. To expand on the original method, Shen et al. developed a method to detect frontiers in 3D space (Shen et al., Reference Shen, Michael and Kumar2012). However, the classic frontier-based methods make decisions greedily and do not consider the dynamics of the UAV, which leads to unnecessary moves and insufficient coverage. To address this issue, Zhou et al. (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Zhang, Chen and Shen2021) proposed an incremental frontier information structure and a hierarchical exploration planning strategy to achieve better exploration efficiency. This was the method we used in our exploration pipeline. The details are explained in the methodology section.

To move the drone from one viewpoint to the next, a smooth and obstacle-free trajectory is required. To achieve this, recent studies (Oleynikova et al., Reference Oleynikova, Burri, Taylor, Nieto, Siegwart and Galceran2016; Gao et al., Reference Gao, Lin and Shen2017; Usenko et al., Reference Usenko, von Stumberg, Pangercic and Cremers2017) mostly use nonlinear optimization on several objectives to generate a trajectory that maximizes the overall performance of the algorithm. Commonly considered objectives in the optimization are the smoothness of the trajectory, travelled time, dynamic feasibility, and obstacle avoidance. Innovatively, Usenko et al. (Usenko et al., Reference Usenko, von Stumberg, Pangercic and Cremers2017) and Zhou et al. (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Gao, Pan and Shen2020) adopted a B-spline for UAV trajectory generation. A B-spline is a smooth polynomial defined by control points and knots. The convex hull property of uniform B-splines can be utilized to incorporate gradient information from the obstacles and dynamic constraints to generate optimal trajectories.

2.2. Image-based 3D reconstruction

Here, 3D reconstruction refers to capturing the 3D appearance of an object and generating the 3D shape of the surface through computer-aided modeling (Moons et al., Reference Moons, Van Gool and Vergauwen2010). Due to the limited sensors on the drone, we focused on image-based 3D reconstruction. Traditional image-based 3D sparse reconstruction methods, such as structure from motion (SFM) (Schönberger and Frahm, Reference Schönberger and Frahm2016) extract geometry features in images, matching similar features in different image views, and estimating the 3D location of the extracted features and cameras to create a 3D reconstruction. With known camera parameters, multi-view stereo (MVS) (Bleyer et al., Reference Bleyer, Rhemann and Rother2011; Schönberger et al., Reference Schönberger, Zheng, Frahm, Pollefeys, Leibe, Matas, Sebe and Welling2016) can be used to create dense reconstructions by matching stereo pixels in neighboring images. The AECO community has adopted image-based 3D reconstruction in various downstream tasks, such as construction progress monitoring (Han and Golparvar-Fard, Reference Han and Golparvar-Fard2015), site material management (Kamari and Ham, Reference Kamari and Ham2021), and facade inspection (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Reichard and Xu2019). However, MVS methods perform poorly in weak-texture areas, since the matching process can be inaccurate with too many similar pixels in the area. Xu et al. (Xu et al., Reference Xu, Kong, Tao and Pollefeys2023) relieve this issue by introducing a planar prior in these regions, but their method is still sensitive to noise.

As deep learning became a popular area of research, researchers have developed innovative deep-learning approaches for 3D reconstruction using images. Neural radiance field (NeRF)-based methods (Mildenhall et al., Reference Mildenhall, Srinivasan, Tancik, Barron, Ramamoorthi and Ng2020; Yariv et al., Reference Yariv, Gu, Kasten and Lipman2021; Müller et al., Reference Müller, Evans, Schied and Keller2022) store the scene in a neural network implicitly. However, implicit representation suffers from its inefficient per-pixel volume rendering for optimization. In contrast, 3D-Gaussian splatting (3DGS) (Kerbl et al., Reference Kerbl, Kopanas, Leimkühler and Drettakis2023) models the environment explicitly using a set of Gaussian primitives with learnable parameters. 3DGS leverages splatting to project 3D Gaussians into 2D image space given camera poses, which is much faster than volume rendering used in NeRF, leading to shorter training time and real-time high-quality scene rendering. The advantage of the deep-learning methods is that they can render a high-quality image of the scene, but the geometry accuracy in weak-texture areas remains problematic.

Given large datasets and complex neural networks, researchers also tried to achieve monocular depth estimation using deep learning. Recent models (Ke et al., Reference Ke, Obukhov, Huang, Metzger, Daudt and Schindler2024; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Xu, Dai, Xiang, Deng, Tong and Yang2024) have achieved impressive estimation quality by training on a massive amount of Red Green Blue-Depth (RGB-D) images captured in various environments. Taking another step forward, DUSt3R (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Leroy, Cabon, Chidlovskii and Revaud2023) can estimate both the camera poses and depth from multiple input images and generate a dense multi-view reconstruction, relieving the need for SFM initialization. In this study, we attempt to combine the advantages of 3DGS and monocular depth estimation to improve the reconstruction quality in weak-textured areas.

2.3. Semantic segmentation

Semantic segmentation provides a label for each pixel in the image or each point in a point cloud, allowing algorithms to identify different objects and understand the scene. Automated semantic segmentation can be classified into two categories: model-driven (Faber and Fisher, Reference Faber and Fisher2002; Dore and Murphy, Reference Dore and Murphy2013; Di Angelo and Di Stefano, Reference Di Angelo and Di Stefano2015) and data-driven (Ronneberger et al., Reference Ronneberger, Fischer, Brox, Navab, Hornegger, Wells and Frangi2015; Qi et al., Reference Qi, Su, Mo and Guibas2017; Lin et al., Reference Lin, Chen, Wang, Wu, Li, Lin, Liu and He2023). Model-driven methods achieve segmentation by aligning data points with various preestablished models of shapes and identifying the model that best conforms to the data. However, model-driven methods are not robust in complicated scenes with multiple classes closely oriented. Therefore, we focus on data-driven methods in this study, which can learn contextual features in the training datasets through iterations and provide predictions after training. In the past decade, numerous studies have attempted to improve the accuracy of semantic segmentation through more complex models (Dosovitskiy et al., Reference Dosovitskiy, Beyer, Kolesnikov, Weissenborn, Zhai, Unterthiner, Dehghani, Minderer, Heigold, Gelly, Uszkoreit and Houlsby2021), larger and better-quality datasets (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Zhao, Puig, Fidler, Barriuso and Torralba2017), and novel training techniques (Loshchilov and Hutter, Reference Loshchilov and Hutter2019). Researchers have also applied semantic segmentation in various applications for buildings and infrastructures, including scan-to-BIM (Park et al., Reference Park, Kim, Lee, Jeong, Lee, Kim and Hong2022), crack detection (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Rajan and Story2019), quality assurance (Mirzaei et al., Reference Mirzaei, Arashpour, Asadi, Masoumi, Mahdiyar and Gonzalez2023), and robot navigation (Yu et al., Reference Yu, Liu, Liu, Xie, Yang, Wei and Fei2018).

Despite being emphasized as a crucial step toward scan-to-BIM (Czerniawski and Leite, Reference Czerniawski and Leite2020; Ma et al., Reference Ma, Czerniawski and Leite2020; Perez-Perez et al., Reference Perez-Perez, Golparvar-Fard and El-Rayes2021), most existing studies only focused on the semantic segmentation of building components. According to references (Yüksek, Reference Yüksek2015; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Jeong, Hong, Lee and Lee2023), material information of building components is important due to its usage in the operation and maintenance phase of a building’s life cycle for cost analysis and energy simulation. Therefore, to generate BIM with a higher level of detail, we also need material information for the point clouds. For this study, we focus on indoor 3D reconstruction with semantic annotations of building components and materials. The model we implemented has a Swin Transformer (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Lin, Cao, Hu, Wei, Zhang, Lin and Guo2021) as the backbone and an Upernet (Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Liu, Zhou, Jiang and Sun2018) head as the decoder. This architecture has been proven effective by achieving state-of-the-art performance in various datasets.

2.4. UAV applications in indoor environments

UAVs have been adopted for various applications in infrastructure inspections. However, few of them focus on indoor applications. The challenges hindering indoor applications lie in the absence of GPS signals indoors. Furthermore, the layout of indoor environments can be unknown, confined, and have the potential to continuously evolve with time (Razafimahazo et al., Reference Razafimahazo, De Saqui-Sannes, Vingerhoeds, Baron, Soulax and Mège2021). Past studies have attempted to address these issues from different angles. For example, Gao et al. (Gao et al., Reference Gao, Wang, Wang, Zhao, Zhai, Chen and Chen2023) proposed an explore-then-exploit UAV system for autonomous indoor facility data collection and scene reconstruction. Their method required one drone to first explore and reconstruct a coarse map of the environment, and use the coarse map to plan a finer path for another drone to complete the scene reconstruction. Their method ensured safe trajectories, but two steps were needed, and semantic information of the scene was not included in the reconstruction. Similarly, Li et al. focused on generating collision-free trajectories in building using the $ {A}^{\ast } $ algorithm and distance transformation. However, their method lacked real-world experiments to prove its effectiveness. On the other hand, Eiris et al. developed a flight behavior visualization platform to study how to visually represent the human decision-making processes during UAV-based indoor building inspection (Eiris et al., Reference Eiris, Albeaino, Gheisari, Benda and Faris2021). In terms of more systematic applications, Cheng et al. proposed an endoscopic system for fusion reactor inspection. (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Xu, Liu, Zheng, Zuo, Ji and Qin2024). They successfully tested the system inside a fusion reactor; however, human operation was still needed to control the drone. In summary, the level of automation for UAVs in indoor environments is still limited. Our proposed system explores the possibility of applying a fully automated UAV system in indoor building environments to perform a semantic reconstruction task. The system is also suitable for modification to support other building-related tasks with complex layouts, architectural designs, and obstacles.

3.1. ICON drone system design

3.1.1. Mechanical design

Figure 1 shows the configuration of the ICON drone, which is built on a 250 mm quadcopter frame. We use a Pixhawk 6c mini flight controller running PX4 autopilot to control 4 Tmotor F40PRO motors through 4 EMAX 45A ESCs. For autonomous navigation, we mounted an Intel NUC computer, a D435i RGB-D camera, and a Wheeltec M100 IMU on the drone for environment perception and real-time processing. The entire drone is powered by a 2,200-mAh LiPo battery. Finally, a Go-Pro camera is mounted on the top to record high-quality RGB videos for 3D reconstruction.

Figure 1.

Overview of the components of the ICON drone.

Table 1.

Metric definitions. $ P $ and $ {P}^{\ast } $ are the point clouds sampled from the predicted and ground truth mesh

3.1.2. Mechatronic and software system

As shown in Figure 2, the drone’s control system includes two parts: the flight controller module and the navigation module. The flight controller sends commands to the motors to control the posture of the drone. The flight controller is connected to the computer through a USB cable and communicates through the robot operating system. The navigation module runs on the onboard computer. The VIO takes in IMU measurements and stereo images from the RGB-D camera and outputs an odometry. The odometry and depth images from the depth camera are sent to the exploration module to generate a B-spline trajectory. The trajectory is output in the form of a position command, which consists of position, velocity, acceleration, and orientation. Lastly, a controller processes the odometry, the position command, and the IMU measurements from the flight controller to output the final thrust and orientation command to the flight controller.

Figure 2.

The mechatronic pipeline of the ICON drone.

3.2. VIO, exploration, and trajectory planning

The ICON drone uses a VIO for localization. A VIO aims to estimate the ego-motion of a robot given visual and inertial measurement inputs. To elaborate, given a series of images $ {image}_{0:N} $ and the corresponding inertial measurements $ {IMU}_{0:N} $ in a time period $ {T}_{0:N} $ , we want to estimate the translation and rotation at each time interval $ t $ , where $ t\in \left[0:N\right] $ .

The estimation process of the VIO can be summarized as follows: (1) visual feature matching and IMU pre-integration, (2) pose optimization, and (3) marginalization. In the first step, we preprocess input data to formulate the optimization problem. The visual features in the images are extracted using the KLT (Kanade–Lucas–Tomasi) sparse optical flow algorithm. Similar features in different frames are matched. These matched feature points $ \left[{p}_t,\dots, {p}_i\right] $ are used to estimate camera poses. On the other hand, the IMU data we collected have a higher frequency than the image data. To optimize poses with consistent time intervals, we need to integrate the IMU data between two image frames, which is known as IMU pre-integration.

Combining both sensors, we formulate a tightly coupled nonlinear least squares problem:

(3.1) $$ \mathcal{X}=\underset{\mathcal{X}}{\arg \min}\sum \limits_{t=0}^N\sum \limits_{k\in S}{z}_t^k-{h}_t^k{\left(\mathcal{X}\right)}_{\Omega_t^k}^2 $$

where $ S $ is the set of measurements coming from different sensors, $ h $ is the sensor model, and $ \mathcal{X} $ is all the states (i.e., translation and rotation) we need to estimate. We assume the uncertainty of sensor observation is Gaussian-distributed $ \mathcal{N}\left({z}_t^k,{\Omega}_t^k\right) $ . For image data, $ z $ is the image feature (i.e., $ {p}_t $ ) and $ h $ is the projection model that projects features observed in other images onto the current image. For IMU data, $ z $ is the IMU measurement at $ t $ and $ h $ is the IMU model that estimates the IMU measurement at $ t $ from $ t-1 $ . A visualization of the optimization process is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Visualization of visual inertial odometry localization.

Lastly, to limit the computational cost, the number of states in the optimization needs to be limited. This is achieved by marginalization. When a new key frame is detected, one of the old key frames will be omitted from the optimization, so the computation time of the VIO is limited to achieve real-time update.

To enable the ICON drone to navigate unknown environments autonomously, we implement a frontier-based exploration algorithm called Fast UAV Exploration (FUEL). The setup of a frontier-based exploration operates upon a voxel grid map as depicted in Figure 4. The voxel grid map contains three basic types of grids: free space, occupied space, and unknown space. Free spaces are the ones that can be freely navigated, occupied spaces are occupied by obstacles that cannot be accessed, and unknown spaces have not been seen by the sensor and hence cannot be identified as either free or occupied. The goal of exploration is to eliminate as many unknown spaces as possible. To achieve this, a frontier is introduced. Frontiers refer to the boundaries between unknown spaces and free spaces, and frontier cells within an area are grouped to form a frontier cluster. In later computations, each cluster will be considered as one frontier entity instead of many frontier cells to save computation costs. The algorithm will generate an optimum path to visit all the frontier clusters. While the UAV is moving, new information will be observed to update the map, and the path will be replanned based on the new map.

Figure 4.

Visualization of the exploration problem and the hierarchical approach.

FUEL generates exploration motions for UAVs through three hierarchical coarse-to-fine steps: (1) finding the shortest path that covers all the frontiers, (2) refining a local segment of the global path, and (3) generating a safe minimum-time trajectory to the next viewpoint. To reduce redundant computation, the length of the paths generated from each of the above three steps decreases from coarse to fine, respectively. Since the trajectories will be updated with the new observed grid map, there is no need to compute a costly B-spline trajectory for the whole map at each update.

In the first step, the algorithm formulates an asymmetric traveling salesman problem to ensure that all frontiers will be covered with minimum traveling distance. To elaborate on the problem, given a set $ V $ of $ n $ frontiers and a distance function $ d $ , find a cycle $ C $ of minimum cost that contains all the points in $ V $ . The cost of a cycle $ C=\left({e}_1,{e}_2,\dots, {e}_n\right) $ is defined to be $ {\sum}_{e\in C}d(e) $ . A cost function is assigned to all the paths between frontiers. In the second step, the algorithm selects the optimum viewpoint at each frontier to optimize time lower bounds and motion consistency. Given discrete viewpoints, the UAV needs a continuous trajectory for smooth navigation. In the last step, FUEL adopts a smooth, safe, and dynamically feasible B-spline trajectory generation method from Fast Planner. To achieve this, we optimize a trajectory with $ {N}_b+1 $ control points $ X={x}_0,{x}_1,\dots {x}_{N_b} $ , where $ {x}_i $ contains a $ x,y,z $ coordinate and a viewpoint angle, and $ \delta {t}_b $ is the knot span following the constraints below:

(3.2) $$ \underset{X,\delta {t}_b}{\arg \min }{f}_s+{\omega}_tT+{\lambda}_c{f}_c+{\lambda}_d\left({f}_v+{f}_a\right)+{\lambda}_{bs}{f}_{bs} $$

$ {f}_s $ is the elastic band’s smoothness cost to ensure a smooth trajectory, $ T $ is the total trajectory time, $ {f}_c $ is the penalty to keep the trajectory away from the closest obstacle, $ {f}_v $ and $ {f}_a $ penalize infeasible velocity and acceleration, $ {f}_{bs} $ ensures smooth transitions between viewpoints, and $ {\omega}_t $ , $ {\lambda}_c $ , $ {\lambda}_d $ , and $ {\lambda}_{bs} $ are predefined weights. Details of the calculation can be found in the original paper (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Zhang, Chen and Shen2021).

3.3. Reconstruction: D-PGSR

The reconstruction method we propose is a 3DGS-based method. 3DGS (Kerbl et al., Reference Kerbl, Kopanas, Leimkühler and Drettakis2023) represents the appearance and geometry of a static 3D scene with a set of 3D Gaussian primitives. Each Gaussian primitive encompasses a set of attributes, including 3D position $ \mu $ , opacity $ \alpha $ , and covariance matrix $ \Sigma $ . A 3D Gaussian $ G $ can be represented as:

(3.3) $$ G(x)={e}^{-\frac{1}{2}{\left(x-\mu \right)}^T{\Sigma}^{-1}\left(x-\mu \right)} $$

The covariance is defined as:

(3.4) $$ \Sigma ={RSS}^T{R}^T $$

where $ R $ is the rotation matrix and $ S $ is the scaling vector. For fast image rendering, the 3D Gaussians are splatted into 2D Gaussians $ {G}_{2D}\left(p;{\mu}_{2D},{\Sigma}_{2D}\right) $ on the image plane utilizing an affine approximation. Finally, the color of a pixel $ p $ is computed by $ \alpha $ composing the color values of all the projected 2D Gaussians that intersect with the pixel $ p $ using the following equation:

(3.5) $$ color(p)=\sum \limits_{i=1}^N{c}_i{\alpha}_i{G}_{i,2D}(p)\prod \limits_{j=1}^{i-1}\left(1-{\alpha}_j{G}_{j,2D}(p)\right) $$

where $ c $ represents the view-dependent color obtained by combining the SH coefficients of $ G $ with the viewing direction.

Even though 3DGS excels at novel view synthesis, its ability to capture geometry is limited, especially in weak-texture areas. To address this issue, we introduce a modified version of Gaussian splitting with reference to PGSR (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Li, Ye, Wang, Xie, Zhai, Wang, Liu, Bao and Zhang2024). PGSR introduces multi-view regularization, which uses pairs of reference and neighboring images to ensure the global consistency of the geometry structure. The pixel $ {p}_r $ in the reference frame can be mapped to a pixel $ {p}_n $ in the neighboring frame through the homography matrix $ {H}_{rn} $ :

(3.6) $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}{\tilde{p}}_n={H}_{rn}{\tilde{p}}_r\\ {}{H}_{rn}={K}_n\left({R}_{rn}-\frac{T_{rn}{n}_r^T}{d_r}\right){K}_r^{-1}\end{array}} $$

where $ \tilde{p} $ is the homogeneous coordinate of $ p $ , and $ {R}_{rn} $ and $ {T}_{rn} $ represent the relative transformation from the reference frame to the neighboring frame. Similarly, for the pixel $ {p}_n $ in the neighboring frame, we can obtain the normal $ {n}_n $ and the distance $ {d}_n $ to compute the homography matrix $ {H}_{nr} $ . The pixel $ {p}_r $ undergoes forward and backward projections between the reference frame and the neighboring frame through $ {H}_{rn} $ and $ {H}_{nr} $ . Minimizing the forward and backward projection error constitutes the multi-view geometric consistency regularization:

(3.7) $$ {L}_{mvgeom}=\frac{1}{V}\sum \limits_{p_r\in V}\phi \left({p}_r\right), $$

where $ \phi \left({p}_r\right)=\parallel {p}_r-{H}_{nr}{H}_{rn}{p}_r\parallel $ is the forward and backward projection error of $ {p}_r $ . When $ \phi \left({p}_r\right) $ exceeds a certain threshold, the pixel can be considered occluded or subject to significant geometric error, and it will not be considered in the loss.

Inspired by MVS methods, photometric multi-view consistency constraints based on plane patches are also incorporated in this method. Specifically, we map an $ 11\times 11 $ pixel patch $ {P}_r $ centered at $ {p}_r $ in the reference image $ {I}_r $ to the corresponding patch in the neighboring image $ {I}_n $ using the homography matrix $ {H}_{rn} $ . To emphasize geometric details, color images are converted to grayscale. Multi-view photometric regularization enforces consistency between $ {P}_r $ and $ {P}_n $ . We utilize the normalized cross-correlation (Yoo and Han, Reference Yoo and Han2009) of patches from the reference frame and the neighboring frame to measure photometric consistency:

$$ {L}_{mvrgb}=\frac{1}{V}\sum \limits_{p_r\in V}\left(1- NCC\Big({I}_r\left({p}_r\right),{I}_n\left({H}_{rn}{p}_r\right)\Big)\right), $$

where $ V $ represents the set of all pixels in the reference image $ {I}_r $ , excluding those with significant errors.

The major drawback of the multi-view constraints mentioned above is that they omit the pixels where the errors exceed a threshold. These errors are commonly present in areas with weak texture. To address this limitation, we leverage the recent advances in monocular depth estimation, which work particularly well in weak-texture surfaces. To achieve this, we first extract the low-texture areas in all the images using a gradient filter:

(3.8) $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}G\left(x,y\right)=\sqrt{{\frac{\partial I}{\partial x}}^2+{\frac{\partial I}{\partial y}}^2}\\ {}M\left(x,y\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1,& G\left(x,y\right)< Threshold\\ {}0,& \mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}\right.\end{array}} $$

where $ \frac{\partial I}{\partial x} $ and $ \frac{\partial I}{\partial y} $ are the x and y gradients of the image. Pixels with gradients below a threshold will be considered weak-texture areas, which will be constrained using the following loss:

(3.9) $$ {\mathrm{\mathcal{L}}}_{\mathrm{depth}}=M\left(x,y\right)\cdot \parallel \overline{D}-\left(a\hat{D}+b\right){\parallel}_2, $$

where $ a,b $ are scaling and shift parameters determined using sampled rays to align the nonmetric depth $ \overline{D} $ with the metric rendering depth $ \hat{D} $ .

The reconstruction quality is accessed using the following metrics:

Since we use Colmap (Schönberger and Frahm, Reference Schönberger and Frahm2016) for initialization, the point cloud generated using D-PGSR is not on an absolute scale. To recover the true scale, we utilize odometry data from VINS (Visual-Inertial Navigation System) fusion, which incorporates a stereo camera and an IMU sensor to recover the absolute scale.

To calculate the scale factor, we first calculate the transformation, $ T $ , between the first camera pose in the odometry $ {P}_{VINS,0} $ and the first camera pose in the Colmap $ {P}_{Colmap,0} $ and apply the transformation $ T $ to all $ N $ camera poses from Colmap following Equation 3.10. This step aligns the two sets of cameras to the same orientation as shown in Figure 5. Next, we compute the positional range of the camera poses in the three axes and the scaling factors $ {x}_{scale},{y}_{scale},{z}_{scale} $ for each axis following Equation 3.11. Finally, we can compute a scaling factor to apply to the dense point cloud by taking the mean of the scale from the three axes.

(3.10) $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}T={P}_{VINS,0}{P}_{Colmap,0}^{-1}\\ {}{\hat{P}}_{Colmap,i}={TP}_{Colmap,i}\\ {}i=\left[0:N\right]\end{array}} $$

(3.11) $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\left\{\begin{array}{c}{x}_{scale}=x\_{range}_{VINS}/x\_{range}_{Colmap},x\_ range={x}_{max}-{x}_{min}\\ {}{y}_{scale}=y\_{range}_{VINS}/y\_{range}_{Colmap},y\_ range={y}_{max}-{y}_{min}\\ {}{z}_{scale}=z\_{range}_{VINS}/z\_{range}_{Colmap},z\_ range={z}_{max}-{z}_{min}\end{array}\right.\\ {} scaling\ factor= Average\left({x}_{scale},{y}_{scale},{z}_{scale}\right)\end{array}} $$

Figure 5.

Aligning the orientation of the camera poses from Colmap and camera poses from VINS.

3.4. Semantic segmentation

The semantic segmentation model we implemented combines a Swin transformer (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Lin, Cao, Hu, Wei, Zhang, Lin and Guo2021) backbone with an Upernet (Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Liu, Zhou, Jiang and Sun2018) head decoder. The model architecture is shown in Figure 6. We used two sets of weights for the segmentation of building components and building materials separately. The segmentation classes are shown in Table 2.

Figure 6.

Semantic segmentation architecture using Swin transformer and Uperhead.

Table 2.

Semantic segmentation classes

For building components segmentation, we directly used the weights pretrained on the ADE20K dataset (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Zhao, Puig, Fidler, Barriuso and Torralba2017). The ADE20K dataset contains 150 classes. For our purpose, we only kept the classes shown in Table 2 and the rest of the classes are combined into Others. For building materials segmentation, we trained the model with a dataset of 1,008 images and 12 classes. The dataset is collected from 15 buildings at the author’s university using an iPhone XR and labeled using Roboflow (Dwyer et al., Reference Dwyer, Nelson and Hansen2024). Since we have a limited number of test scenes and not all the material classes are present, only the performance of the classes shown in Table 2 are evaluated. Mean intersection over union (mIoU) and mean accuracy are used as the evaluation metrics in this study and are defined as follows:

(3.12) $$ mIoU=\frac{1}{N}\sum \limits_{n=1}^N\frac{TP_n}{TP_n+{FP}_n+{FN}_n} $$

(3.13) $$ overall\; Acc=\frac{TP+ TN}{TP+ FP+ FN+ TN} $$

where $ N $ is the number of classes in the segmentation task, and $ TP, FP, TN, FN $ represent true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative, respectively.

In order to map the semantic information onto the point cloud, we first back-project the point cloud to each camera to form a depth map. Next, the label map generated will be mapped on top of the depth map. Finally, we project the depth maps and the semantically labeled map back to 3D space using the known camera parameters.

4.1. Autonomous navigation

We tested our UAV in three different spaces in an educational building in the authors’ university: the classroom, the lobby, and the lounge. The exploration paths are shown in Figure 7. All scans were completed in <30 s. The red line shows the path of the UAV, and the rest are obstacles detected. The colors of the obstacles represent different altitudes: colder color represents lower altitude (e.g., ground as green) and warmer color represents higher altitude (e.g., upper wall as purple). We observed that the exploration showed good room coverage, with all the floors and walls covered, which provided a solid foundation for 3D reconstruction.

Figure 7.

Exploration paths in three testing spaces.

4.2. 3D reconstruction

Figure 8 shows the reconstruction results using our proposed method. To evaluate the accuracy of the reconstruction, we collected point clouds using a high-fidelity terrestrial LiDAR scanner (Trimble TX8), shown in Figure 9, as ground truth. Quantitative reconstruction results are shown in Table 3. Our method achieves superior performance compared to the state-of-the-art multi-view stereo method, ACMMP (Xu et al., Reference Xu, Kong, Tao and Pollefeys2023), and the Gaussian Splatting method, PGSR (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Li, Ye, Wang, Xie, Zhai, Wang, Liu, Bao and Zhang2024). We also visualize the cloud-to-cloud distance between the reconstruction and the ground truth using CloudCompare (Cloudcompare, 2024), as shown in Figure 10. Colder color (e.g., blue) represents a smaller distance, showing the parts that are more adherent to the ground truth. Warmer color (e.g., red) represents a larger distance, representing a larger reconstruction error. There are three major sources of error we identified. The first one is the error from incorrectly reconstructed points. This is inevitable since noise is inherent in the input images, reflecting incorrect information about the environment. The second source of error comes from the limited coverage of LiDAR data. Given limited resources, we were only able to acquire one LiDAR scan for each scene. Therefore, some of the areas reconstructed by the UAV are missing in the LiDAR scan, introducing errors in the evaluation. The last source of error comes from scaling the point clouds to absolute scales. This error mainly comes from the VIO system. To evaluate this error, we scale the point clouds by manually matching feature points between the reconstructed point clouds and the ground truth point clouds, which can be considered as the ground truth scale. Table 4 shows that the error is relatively small.

Figure 8.

Point clouds generated with Colmap + D-PGSR.

Figure 9.

Point clouds collected using a LiDAR scanner.

Table 3.

Comparison of different methods across multiple scenes. Lower values are better for Accuracy (Acc) and Completeness (Comp), while higher values are better for Precision (Prec), Recall, and F1-score

Figure 10.

Cloud-to-cloud distances of the reconstructed point clouds and the point clouds from a LiDAR scanner.

Table 4.

Cloud-to-cloud distance between 3D reconstructed point clouds and reference point clouds collected via terrestrial LiDAR

4.3. Semantic segmentation

To evaluate the segmentation results, we manually labeled the scenes with ground truth building components and materials. The quantitative results are shown in Table 5 and visualization is shown in Figures 11 and 12.

Table 5.

Semantic segmentation results

Figure 11.

Visualization of the building components segmentation.

Figure 12.

Visualization of the building materials segmentation.

The overall accuracy reflects that ~80% of the points are correctly labeled in both tasks, demonstrating that the models are effective in the grand scheme. In Figures 11 and 12, we observed that the major classes like walls, ceiling, and floor are correctly labeled, as well as their corresponding materials, which lays a strong foundation toward scan-to-BIM. On the other hand, mIoU is a more difficult evaluation metric requiring precise segmentation. The mIoU we achieved for both tasks is 0.588 and 0.629, reflecting room for improvement in segmentation details. Specifically, we identified the following sources of error. First, visual similarities between classes can lead to incorrect segmentation by the model. For example, we observed that in building component segmentation, the IoU for windows is particularly low, with only 0.065, which significantly lowers the overall performance. This is due to similar visual features observed on windows compared to other classes, like walls and doors, making it hard to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, the limited number of testing scenes can introduce strong biases during evaluation. In conclusion, we focused on testing the feasibility of the proposed pipeline, and the experiment results above are robust to validate the effectiveness of our proposed pipeline.