Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 94 references

Towards Graph-Based Deep Learning for Map Generalization: Insights from Building Footprints Simplification and Aggregation

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Graph neural networks applied to building footprint generalization show GraphSAGE stronger on aggregation links but all models struggle with exact node moves.

desk verdict This paper recasts building footprint simplification and aggregation as node regression and link prediction on graphs, then tests a few GNNs, but supplies no numbers or setup details to back the performance claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.19956 v1 pith:DUNV6CGV submitted 2026-06-18 cs.LG

Yanning Wang , Zhiyong Zhou , Zhouyu Liu , Mengni Yu , Yu Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords mapgeneralizationbuildingfootprintsgraphneuralnetworkssimplificationaggregationlinkpredictionnodecartography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper explores the first use of graph-based deep learning for two core map generalization operations on building footprints. It recasts simplification as a node movement prediction task and aggregation as a link prediction task inside one framework. Tests of GCN, GAT, and GraphSAGE on multi-scale data indicate that GraphSAGE handles the link prediction part more accurately, yet node movement prediction stays imprecise across architectures. The work concludes that aggregation involves greater complexity than simplification because current models have trouble encoding higher-level spatial relations.

What carries the argument

The unified graph learning framework that reformulates simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction on building footprint graphs, evaluated using GCN, GAT, and GraphSAGE.

What would settle it

Apply the trained models to produce actual generalized maps from the test footprints and have cartographers or quantitative map-quality metrics compare those outputs to reference generalized versions for visual fidelity and topological accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The study presents the first exploratory application of graph-based deep learning to both simplification and aggregation of complex building footprints by reformulating simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction within a unified graph learning framework. Evaluation of representative graph neural network architectures (GCN, GAT, and GraphSAGE) on multi-scale building datasets shows that GraphSAGE demonstrates relative strengths in link prediction accuracy while revealing persistent challenges in precise node movement prediction. The results highlight that aggregation poses greater complexity and challenges than simplification, underscoring the difficulty of

Load-bearing premise

Reformulating simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction on building footprint graphs is a faithful and sufficient representation of the cartographic tasks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GraphSAGE demonstrates relative strengths in link prediction accuracy for the aggregation task.
  • Precise node movement prediction remains a persistent challenge across the tested architectures.
  • Aggregation poses greater complexity and challenges than simplification.
  • Current deep learning approaches have difficulty capturing higher-level spatial relationships in map generalization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Post-processing steps will likely be required before model outputs can serve as production-ready generalized maps.
  • The same node-and-link reformulation could be tested on other generalization operations such as displacement or selection.
  • Future graph models may need explicit mechanisms for encoding multi-scale spatial hierarchy to close the performance gap on aggregation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to present the first exploratory application of graph-based deep learning to map generalization, specifically for simplification and aggregation of building footprints. It reformulates simplification as node movement prediction (coordinate regression) and aggregation as link prediction on graphs derived from building data. Three GNN architectures (GCN, GAT, GraphSAGE) are evaluated on multi-scale building datasets, with the results indicating that GraphSAGE shows relative strengths in link prediction accuracy, that precise node movement prediction remains challenging, and that aggregation poses greater complexity than simplification. Limitations including data imbalance and the need for post-processing are acknowledged, along with the provision of methodological insights for future work.

Significance. If the graph reformulation faithfully encodes the geometric, topological, and perceptual requirements of cartographic generalization and the reported performance differences prove robust, the work could open a promising direction for applying GNNs to automated map generalization. The explicit discussion of relative task difficulties and current limitations supplies concrete guidance for subsequent research at the intersection of deep learning and geographic information science.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central methodological claim rests on reformulating simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction. However, the abstract states that there are 'persistent challenges in precise node movement prediction' and a 'need for post-processing,' indicating that the learned predictions do not by themselves satisfy cartographic invariants such as area preservation, orthogonality, or visual saliency. Without a dedicated analysis (e.g., in the methodology or results sections) showing that the graph construction and loss functions enforce these constraints—or that post-processing does not itself solve the original generalization problem—the reported relative strengths of GraphSAGE on link prediction do not establish that the framework captures the target tasks.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'GraphSAGE demonstrates relative strengths in link prediction accuracy' and that 'aggregation poses greater complexity' is presented without accompanying quantitative evidence (specific metrics, dataset sizes, train/test splits, or statistical comparisons) in the provided text. Because the evaluation is described as purely empirical, the absence of these details in the abstract leaves the magnitude and reliability of the performance differences unverifiable from the given description.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a concise statement of the number of buildings or graphs used and the precise evaluation metrics (e.g., RMSE for node movement, precision/recall for links) to allow readers to gauge the scale of the experiments immediately.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our exploratory study. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central methodological claim rests on reformulating simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction. However, the abstract states that there are 'persistent challenges in precise node movement prediction' and a 'need for post-processing,' indicating that the learned predictions do not by themselves satisfy cartographic invariants such as area preservation, orthogonality, or visual saliency. Without a dedicated analysis (e.g., in the methodology or results sections) showing that the graph construction and loss functions enforce these constraints—or that post-processing does not itself solve the original generalization problem—the reported relative strengths of GraphSAGE on link prediction do not establish that the framework captures the target tasks.

    Authors: We agree that the current framework is exploratory and that model outputs require post-processing to fully meet cartographic standards. The reformulation is presented as an initial step rather than a complete solution. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated discussion in the methodology section analyzing how the graph construction and chosen loss functions relate to geometric and topological constraints, and we will explicitly clarify the complementary role of post-processing. This will better contextualize the empirical findings on relative model strengths. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'GraphSAGE demonstrates relative strengths in link prediction accuracy' and that 'aggregation poses greater complexity' is presented without accompanying quantitative evidence (specific metrics, dataset sizes, train/test splits, or statistical comparisons) in the provided text. Because the evaluation is described as purely empirical, the absence of these details in the abstract leaves the magnitude and reliability of the performance differences unverifiable from the given description.

    Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary; the full quantitative results, including specific metrics, dataset sizes, splits, and comparisons, appear in the experimental sections. To improve verifiability from the abstract itself we will revise it to include concise references to the key performance numbers (e.g., link-prediction F1 scores) while respecting length constraints. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: purely empirical evaluation of GNNs on reformulated tasks

full rationale

The paper is an exploratory empirical application of standard GNN architectures (GCN, GAT, GraphSAGE) to building-footprint graphs. Simplification and aggregation are reformulated as node-movement regression and link prediction, but this is presented as a modeling choice rather than a derived result. No equations, fitted parameters called predictions, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. Performance is measured directly on held-out data with acknowledged limitations (data imbalance, post-processing needs). The central claims rest on experimental outcomes, not on any reduction to inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all fields left empty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Graph-Based Deep Learning for Map Generalization: Insights from Building Footprints Simplification and Aggregation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUNV6CGV

@misc{pith2026260619956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Graph-Based Deep Learning for Map Generalization: Insights from Building Footprints Simplification and Aggregation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUNV6CGV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.19956}
}
read the original abstract

Map generalization remains one of the fundamental tasks in cartography, especially for the simplification and aggregation of complex building footprints. This study presents the first exploratory application of graph-based deep learning to both tasks, reformulating simplification as node movement prediction and aggregation as link prediction within a unified graph learning framework. We evaluate representative graph neural network architectures (GCN, GAT, and GraphSAGE) on multi-scale building datasets, showing that GraphSAGE demonstrates relative strengths in link prediction accuracy, while also revealing persistent challenges in precise node movement prediction. Beyond quantitative performance, the results highlight that aggregation poses greater complexity and challenges than simplification, underscoring the difficulty of capturing higher-level spatial relationships in map generalization with current deep learning approaches. Although limitations such as data imbalance and the need for post-processing remain, the study provides valuable insights and methodological directions for advancing automated map generalization with deep learning approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dataset used for learning the simplification and aggregation operators: blue for buildings at a map scale of 1:10,000 and polygons with black borders indicating the buildings at a map scale of 1:25,000 and grey borders indicating scale of 1:15,000 after map generalization (WGS 1984 UTM Zone 32N) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graph Representation with Node IDs and Corre￾sponding Adjacency Matrix Ground truth data are generated by transforming the graph constructed from building polygons at the 1:10,000 scale (denoted as G-geb10) to approximate the correspond￾ing graphs at coarser or finer scales, specifically 1:25,000 (G-geb25) and 1:15,000 (G-geb15). For clarity, the transfor￾mation procedure is described using the 1:10,000–1:25,000 sca… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The process of training data preparation: (1) original buildings at map scale 1:10,000; (2) vertex movement illus￾trated in red with adjacency updates; (3) aggregated building at target map scale; (4) buildings after removing redundant vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Edge Update Process for Ground Truth Calculation The preceding figures illustrate the principles of node displacement and edge restructuring used in ground truth generation. Based on these principles, the following exam￾ples apply the proposed procedure to representati…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geometric Features of G-geb10 For intrinsic features: 1. Turn angle(loc_turn_angle): 𝑢 = pos_prev−pos_node, 𝑣 = pos_next−pos_node. where u and v are vectors pointing from the current node to the previous and next nodes respectively.The angle between vectors 𝐮 and 𝐯 is …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Building Edge Constraint Delaunay Triangulation 3.3. Model Architecture and Training Strategy All models were implemented using PyTorch. A modu￾lar graph neural network (GNN) architecture was adopted to facilitate flexible experimentation with different convolution ope…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graph Neural Network (GNN) Model Architecture for Link Prediction and Node Movement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training and Validation Performance of GNN Models for Link Prediction Accuracy, and Node Movement Loss in 1:10,000 and 1:25,000 Datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Predicted Adjacency Example with GAT, GCN, and GraphSAGE Models in Link Prediction Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: presents representative results from the valida￾tion dataset, illustrating node movement predictions in terms of Δ𝑥 and Δ𝑦, as well as predicted adjacency matrices for the link prediction task. Visual comparison with the ground truth reveals that all three models are …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prediction Comparison between different models-Part 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prediction Comparison between different models-Part 2 scale, accompanied by a moderate rise in node movement error. In contrast, GCN shows a more pronounced increase in MSE at the larger scale, suggesting greater sensitivity to increased geometric simplification and l…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Prediction Comparison between different dataset groups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: “with and without” Relative Feature Ablation Experiment Visualization Result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Data Imbalance Examples in node movement and link prediction task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Visualization Confusion Matrix in Link Prediction Task with GAT, GCN, GraphSAGE Model For the node movement task, model performance is eval￾uated using mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean squared error (RMSE). As reported in [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Visualization Results of the GraphSAGE Model on the Test Datasets suggests that effective feature selection and update mecha￾nisms remain a nontrivial challenge. The comparison between single-task and multi-task training highlights additional trade-offs between modeli…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , year 2022

    author Ai, T. , year 2022 . title Some thoughts on deep learning empowering cartography . journal Journal of Geography and Cartography volume 5 , pages 25--40

    2022

  2. [2]

    , author Regnauld, N

    author Barrault, M. , author Regnauld, N. , author Duchêne, C. , author Haire, K. , author Baeijs, C. , author Demazeau, Y. , author Weibel, R. , year 2001 . title Integrating multi-agent, object-oriented and algorithmic techniques for improved automated map generalization , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference , pp....

    2001

  3. [3]

    , author Weibel, R

    author Brassel, K.E. , author Weibel, R. , year 1988 . title A review and conceptual framework of automated map generalization . journal International Journal of Geographical Information System volume 2 , pages 229--244

    1988

  4. [4]

    , author Li, J

    author Cai, L. , author Li, J. , author Wang, J. , author Ji, S. , year 2021 . title Line graph neural networks for link prediction . journal IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence volume 44 , pages 5103--5113

    2021

  5. [5]

    , author Peucker, T.K

    author Douglas, D.H. , author Peucker, T.K. , year 1973 . title Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature . journal Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization volume 10 , pages 112--122

    1973

  6. [6]

    , author Touya, G

    author Duch \^e ne, C. , author Touya, G. , author Taillandier, P. , year 2018 . title Automatic building generalization using machine learning: An application to the generalization of french cadastral maps . journal ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information volume 7 , pages 20 . :10.3390/ijgi7010020

    work page doi:10.3390/ijgi7010020 2018

  7. [7]

    , author Ai, T

    author Guo, R. , author Ai, T. , year 2000 . title Simplification and aggregation of building polygon in automatic map generalization . journal Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University volume 25 , pages 25--30

    2000

  8. [8]

    Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks

    author Kipf, T.N. , author Welling, M. , year 2017 . title Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks , in: booktitle International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) . https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    , author Jang, H

    author Lee, J. , author Jang, H. , author Yang, J. , author Yu, K. , year 2017 . title Machine learning classification of buildings for map generalization . journal ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information volume 6 , pages 309

    2017

  2. [10]

    , year 2007

    author Mackaness, W.A. , year 2007 . title Understanding geographic space , in: booktitle Generalisation of geographic information . publisher Elsevier , pp. pages 1--10

    2007

  3. [11]

    , author Beard, K.M

    author Mackaness, W.A. , author Beard, K.M. , year 1993 . title Use of graph theory to support map generalization . journal Cartography and Geographic Information Systems volume 20 , pages 210--221

    1993

  4. [12]

    , author Ruas, A

    author Mackaness, W.A. , author Ruas, A. , author Sarjakoski, T. , year 2014 . title Automation in map generalisation: evolution and prospects . journal The Cartographic Journal volume 51 , pages 5--13 . :10.1179/1743277413Y.0000000073

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    , author Jiang, C

    author Mai, G. , author Jiang, C. , author Sun, W. , author Zhu, R. , author Xuan, Y. , author Cai, L. , author Lao, N. , year 2023 . title Towards general-purpose representation learning of polygonal geometries . journal GeoInformatica volume 27 , pages 289--340

    2023

  6. [14]

    , year 1999

    author Saalfeld, A. , year 1999 . title Topologically consistent line simplification with the douglas-peucker algorithm . journal Cartography and Geographic Information Science volume 26 , pages 7--18

    1999

  7. [15]

    , author Vereenooghe, T

    author Sester, M. , author Vereenooghe, T. , author Burghardt, D. , author Duchêne, C. , year 2019 . title Integrating deep learning in cartographic generalisation: Challenges and potential . journal ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information volume 8 , pages 258 . :10.339...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    , author Ai, T

    author Shen, Y. , author Ai, T. , author Li, W. , author Yang, M. , author Feng, Y. , year 2019 . title A polygon aggregation method with global feature preservation using superpixel segmentation . journal Computers, Environment and Urban Systems volume 75 , pages 117--131

    2019

  9. [17]

    , author Zhang, X

    author Touya, G. , author Zhang, X. , author Lokhat, I. , year 2019 . title Is deep learning the new agent for map generalization? journal International Journal of Cartography volume 5 , pages 142--157

    2019

  10. [18]

    , author Whyatt, J.D

    author Visvalingam, M. , author Whyatt, J.D. , year 2017 . title Line generalization by repeated elimination of points , in: booktitle Landmarks in Mapping . publisher Routledge , pp. pages 144--155

    2017

  11. [19]

    , author Müller, J.C

    author Wang, Z. , author Müller, J.C. , year 1998 . title Line generalization based on analysis of shape characteristics . journal Cartography and Geographic Information Systems volume 25 , pages 3--15

    1998

  12. [20]

    , author Jones, C.B

    author Ware, J.M. , author Jones, C.B. , year 1998 . title Conflict reduction in map generalization using iterative improvement . journal GeoInformatica volume 2 , pages 383--407

    1998

  13. [21]

    , author Jones, C.B

    author Ware, J.M. , author Jones, C.B. , author Thomas, N. , year 2003 . title Automated map generalization with multiple operators: a simulated annealing approach . journal International Journal of Geographical Information Science volume 17 , pages 743--769

    2003

  14. [22]

    , author Dutton, G

    author Weibel, R. , author Dutton, G. , year 1998 . title Constraint-based automated map generalization , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling , organization IGU-Geographic Information Science Study Group , address Vancouver . p...

    1998

  15. [23]

    , author Dutton, G

    author Weibel, R. , author Dutton, G. , year 1999 . title Generalising spatial data and dealing with multiple representations , in: editor Goodchild, M.F. , editor Egenhofer, M.J. (Eds.), booktitle Interoperating Geographic Information Systems . publisher Springer , address Bo...

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    , author Ware, J.M

    author Wilson, I.D. , author Ware, J.M. , author Ware, J.A. , year 2003 . title A genetic algorithm approach to cartographic map generalisation . journal Computers in Industry volume 52 , pages 291--304

    2003

  17. [25]

    , author Pan, S

    author Wu, Z. , author Pan, S. , author Chen, F. , author Long, G. , author Zhang, C. , author Philip, S.Y. , year 2021 . title A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks . journal IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems volume 32 , pages 4--24 . :10.110...

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    , author Ai, T

    author Yan, X. , author Ai, T. , author Yang, M. , author Tong, X. , author Liu, Q. , year 2022 . title A graph deep learning approach for urban building grouping . journal Geocarto International volume 37 , pages 2944--2966

    2022

  19. [27]

    , author Sun, Q

    author Zhang, F. , author Sun, Q. , author Ma, J. , author Lyu, Z. , author Huang, Z. , year 2023 . title A polygonal buildings aggregation method considering obstacle elements and visual clarity . journal Geocarto International volume 38 , pages 2266672

    2023

  20. [28]

    , author Chen, Y

    author Zhang, M. , author Chen, Y. , year 2018 a. title Link prediction based on graph neural networks , in: booktitle Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) . https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.09691

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    , author Chen, Y

    author Zhang, M. , author Chen, Y. , year 2018 b. title Link prediction based on graph neural networks , in: booktitle Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2018

  22. [30]

    , author Fu, C

    author Zhou, Z. , author Fu, C. , author Weibel, R. , year 2023 . title Move and remove: Multi-task learning for building simplification in vector maps with a graph convolutional neural network . journal ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing volume 202 , pages 205--218

    2023

  23. [31]

    , title =

    Fortunato, S. , title =. Phys. Rep.-Rev. Sec. Phys. Lett. , volume =. 2010 , pages =

    2010

  24. [32]

    Interoperating Geographic Information Systems , editor =

    Weibel, Robert and Dutton, Gerald , title =. Interoperating Geographic Information Systems , editor =. 1999 , publisher =

    1999

  25. [33]

    The Cartographic Journal , volume=

    Automation in map generalisation: evolution and prospects , author=. The Cartographic Journal , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  26. [34]

    Cartography and Geographic Information Science , volume=

    Geometric stroke model for representing linear features , author=. Cartography and Geographic Information Science , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  27. [35]

    ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=

    Integrating deep learning in cartographic generalisation: Challenges and potential , author=. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  28. [36]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  29. [37]

    Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization , volume=

    Automated line generalization , author=. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization , volume=. 1987 , doi=

    1987

  30. [38]

    ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=

    Automatic building generalization using machine learning: An application to the generalization of French cadastral maps , author=. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  31. [39]

    GeoInformatica , volume=

    Graph-based approaches for automated generalization of buildings and settlements , author=. GeoInformatica , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  32. [40]

    Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=

    Progressive generalization for visual multi-scale map authoring , author=. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  33. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , volume=

    A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks , author=. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  34. [42]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume=

    Link prediction based on graph neural networks , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume=. 2018 , url=

    2018

  35. [43]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=

    A deep learning method for building group recognition based on topological and semantic features , author=. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  36. [44]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=

    Learning-based building pattern recognition and simplification from urban maps , author=. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  37. [45]

    International Journal of Geographical Information Systems , volume=

    A knowledge-based system for road network generalization , author=. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems , volume=. 1992 , publisher=

    1992

  38. [46]

    1995 , publisher=

    GIS and generalization: Methodology and practice , author=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  39. [47]

    Geo-spatial Information Science , volume=

    A learning-based approach for building generalization from urban data , author=. Geo-spatial Information Science , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  40. [48]

    Cartographic and Geographic Information Science , volume=

    Cognition and the cartographic generalisation process , author=. Cartographic and Geographic Information Science , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

  41. [49]

    Mackaness, W. A. and Beard, K. M. , title =. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems , year =

  42. [50]

    , title =

    Scharfe, W. , title =. Imago Mundi , year =

  43. [51]

    Robinson, A. H. and Morrison, J. L. and Muehrcke, P. C. , title =. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , year =

  44. [52]

    Tobler, W. R. , title =. Geographical Analysis , year =

  45. [53]

    Steward, H. J. , title =. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization , year =

  46. [54]

    Brassel, K. E. and Weibel, R. , title =. International Journal of Geographical Information System , year =

  47. [55]

    McMaster, R. B. and Shea, K. S. , title =. Scanning Electron Microsc Meet at , year =

  48. [56]

    McMaster, R. B. and Shea, K. S. , title =. 1992 , address =

    1992

  49. [57]

    Deveau, T. J. , title =. Proc. Auto-Carto VII , year =

  50. [58]

    Jenks, G. F. , title =. Cartographica , year =

  51. [59]

    Douglas, D. H. and Peucker, T. K. , title =. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization , year =

  52. [60]

    , title =

    Saalfeld, A. , title =. Cartography and Geographic Information Science , year =

  53. [61]

    and Müller, J

    Wang, Z. and Müller, J. C. , title =. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems , year =

  54. [62]

    and Whyatt, J

    Visvalingam, M. and Whyatt, J. D. , title =. Landmarks in Mapping , publisher =. 2017 , pages =

    2017

  55. [63]

    Harrie, L. E. , title =. Cartography and Geographic Information Science , year =

  56. [64]

    Ware, J. M. and Jones, C. B. , title =. GeoInformatica , year =

  57. [65]

    Wilson, I. D. and Ware, J. M. and Ware, J. A. , title =. Computers in Industry , year =

  58. [66]

    Ware, J. M. and Jones, C. B. and Thomas, N. , title =. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , year =

  59. [67]

    and Dutton, G

    Weibel, R. and Dutton, G. , title =. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling , year =

  60. [68]

    and Regnauld, N

    Barrault, M. and Regnauld, N. and Duchêne, C. and Haire, K. and Baeijs, C. and Demazeau, Y. and Weibel, R. , title =. Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference , year =

  61. [69]

    and Jang, H

    Lee, J. and Jang, H. and Yang, J. and Yu, K. , title =. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , year =

  62. [70]

    and Wereszczyńska, K

    Karsznia, I. and Wereszczyńska, K. and Weibel, R. , title =. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , year =

  63. [71]

    , title =

    Ai, T. , title =. Journal of Geography and Cartography , year =

  64. [72]

    and Thiemann, F

    Feng, Y. and Thiemann, F. and Sester, M. , title =. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , year =

  65. [73]

    and Fu, C

    Zhou, Z. and Fu, C. and Weibel, R. , title =. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , year =

  66. [74]

    and Touya, G

    Courtial, A. and Touya, G. and Zhang, X. , title =. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , year =

  67. [75]

    and El Ayedi, A

    Courtial, A. and El Ayedi, A. and Touya, G. and Zhang, X. , title =. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , year =

  68. [76]

    and Wu, F

    Du, J. and Wu, F. and Yin, J. and Liu, C. and Gong, X. , title =. Cartography and Geographic Information Science , year =

  69. [77]

    and Ai, T

    Yan, X. and Ai, T. and Yang, M. and Yin, H. , title =. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , year =

  70. [78]

    and Ai, T

    Yan, X. and Ai, T. and Yang, M. and Tong, X. , title =. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , year =

  71. [79]

    and Jiang, C

    Mai, G. and Jiang, C. and Sun, W. and Zhu, R. and Xuan, Y. and Cai, L. and Lao, N. , title =. GeoInformatica , year =

  72. [80]

    and Ai, T

    Guo, R. and Ai, T. , title =. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University , year =

  73. [81]

    and Feng, Y

    Sester, M. and Feng, Y. and Thiemann, F. , title =. The ISPRS-International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , year =

  74. [82]

    and Rao, J

    Kang, Y. and Rao, J. and Wang, W. and Peng, B. and Gao, S. and Zhang, F. , title =. Proceedings of the AutoCarto , year =

  75. [83]

    and Singh, S

    Kumar, A. and Singh, S. S. and Singh, K. and Biswas, B. , title =. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , year =

  76. [84]

    and Kleinberg, J

    Liben-Nowell, D. and Kleinberg, J. , title =. Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management , year =

  77. [85]

    and Lü, L

    Zhou, T. and Lü, L. and Zhang, Y. C. , title =. The European Physical Journal B , year =

  78. [86]

    and Moore, C

    Clauset, A. and Moore, C. and Newman, M. E. , title =. Nature , year =

  79. [87]

    and Chen, Y

    Zhang, M. and Chen, Y. , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

  80. [88]

    and Li, J

    Cai, L. and Li, J. and Wang, J. and Ji, S. , title =. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , year =

  81. [89]

    and Cormode, G

    Bhagat, S. and Cormode, G. and Muthukrishnan, S. , title =. Social Network Data Analytics , year =

  82. [90]

    Generalisation of geographic information , pages=

    Understanding geographic space , author=. Generalisation of geographic information , pages=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  83. [91]

    International Journal of Cartography , volume=

    Is deep learning the new agent for map generalization? , author=. International Journal of Cartography , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  84. [92]

    Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=

    A polygon aggregation method with global feature preservation using superpixel segmentation , author=. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  85. [93]

    Geocarto International , volume=

    A polygonal buildings aggregation method considering obstacle elements and visual clarity , author=. Geocarto International , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  86. [94]

    Geocarto International , volume=

    A graph deep learning approach for urban building grouping , author=. Geocarto International , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.