Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

CityLLM: A framework for natural-language querying of semantic 3D city models

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CityLLM turns plain-language questions into accurate queries over 3D city models, with a perfect score on a 54-question test.

desk verdict CityLLM is a clean two-backend LLM-query system for CityJSON, with the cross-database chaining genuinely new and the evaluation too self-contained to trust the headline percentages. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14542 v1 pith:7WPSCQWQ submitted 2026-07-16 cs.CL

Rabindra Lamsal , Sisi Zlatanova , Johnson Xuesong Shen This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords semantic3DcitymodelsnaturallanguagequeryinglargeJSONconversationalinterfacecross-databasespatialdatabasegraph
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

This paper claims that a lightweight LLM-based agent, grounded in a deliberately simple relational schema for 3D city data plus a graph schema for street networks, can serve as a reliable conversational interface for non-experts. On a real city dataset of 853 buildings, the framework translated 54 natural-language questions into executable database queries, achieving a 100% query-success rate and answer correctness between 85% and 100% depending on the underlying model. An open-source model reached 100% correctness, outperforming two larger proprietary models, which the authors attribute to the constraining effect of schema context, tool selection, retries, and cross-database chaining. If this holds, natural-language access to urban digital twins no longer requires heavyweight knowledge graphs or top-tier commercial models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the combination of a purpose-built relational schema for the city model (object attributes separated from geometries, with precomputed derived properties and a simplified per-object view) and a graph schema for street networks and amenities, plus the LLM agent's constrained workflow: explicit tool selection, structured query generation, iterative error-fed retries, and cross-database chaining. This machinery does the work of turning natural language into reliable database queries.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on a different city's CityJSON dataset with a new set of, say, 100 natural-language questions written by independent users, and measure answer correctness; if accuracy falls well below the reported 85–100% range, or the open-source model no longer leads, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strong conversational querying of semantic 3D city models can be achieved through a modular architecture that maps CityJSON geometry and attributes into a compact relational schema, stores street-network and amenity data in a graph database, and lets an LLM agent choose the backend, generate SQL or the graph query language, chain results across backends when needed, and repair failed queries by feeding database errors back into the model. The authors demonstrate this with a 54-query evaluation on a Rotterdam CityJSON dataset, reporting 100% query success across all models, answer correctness of 100%, 94.4%, and 85.2% for three LLMs, and visualization correctness of

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy rests on the authors' own manual judgment of 54 self-curated queries against expected answers, so the results are only as representative and unbiased as that question set and those judgments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-expert users can interrogate 3D city models conversationally without learning SQL, graph query languages, or GIS software.
  • Cross-database questions that combine building data with street networks and amenities can be answered through chained queries.
  • Iterative query refinement with database error feedback reliably produces executable queries, even when initial attempts fail.
  • Smaller, open-source LLMs can match or exceed larger proprietary models when given structured schema context and clear tool boundaries.
  • The architecture is modular, so adding new data backends (e.g., sensor data, regulatory documents) is a natural extension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The evaluation is small and self-curated; transferring the framework to other cities and larger, user-generated question sets would test whether the reported accuracy generalizes.
  • The finding that schema design and prompt constraints may matter more than raw model capability could shift how practitioners build LLM-based data interfaces.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same framework to other semantic 3D formats (e.g., CityGML or IFC) and see if the compact-schema approach holds up.
  • Reducing the large system prompt via dynamic context retrieval, as the authors note, could make the framework lighter and cheaper without losing accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents CityLLM, an LLM-based agent framework for querying semantic 3D city models. CityJSON data are stored in PostgreSQL/PostGIS using a compact relational schema, while OpenStreetMap street networks and amenities are stored in a Neo4j graph database. An LLM agent translates natural-language queries into SQL or Cypher, supports iterative retry on execution errors, and chains across databases when needed; results are returned conversationally and visualized on an interactive map. The authors evaluate the framework on a Rotterdam CityJSON dataset (853 LoD2 buildings) using 54 self-curated queries grouped into spatial, graph, cross-database, and conversational scenarios, with GPT-OSS (120B), Gemini 3.1, and GPT-5.4. Reported results are high: answer correctness 85.2–100%, visualization correctness 92.9–100%, 100% query success, and few retries. The paper includes worked examples of generated SQL/Cypher and documented failure cases.

Significance. If the evaluation were independently reproducible, CityLLM would be a useful and pragmatic contribution to lowering the barrier for non-expert querying of semantic 3D city models. The architecture is clearly described, and Tables 3–5 provide valuable concrete examples of the generated SQL/Cypher and cross-database chaining. The paper's candor in reporting failure cases and in re-evaluating them with model variants is a strength. However, the quantitative claims currently rest on an internal, non-released evaluation protocol: 54 author-curated queries, author-defined expected answers, and author-performed manual scoring, with no inter-annotator agreement, no repeated runs, and no release of the benchmark artifacts. This is a serious reproducibility and validity concern that should be addressed before the headline accuracy figures can be taken as robust evidence for the framework's performance.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Tables 1–2] The headline quantitative claims (answer correctness 85.2–100%, visualization correctness 92.9–100%) are supported only by the §4 protocol: 54 queries curated by the authors, expected answers defined by the authors, and all criteria 'checked manually by the authors' against those expected answers. No query list, expected answers, rubric, transcripts, or code are released; no inter-annotator agreement is reported; and each query was run once. This design leaves substantial room for selection and judgment bias, so the reported percentages are not reproducible. I recommend releasing the full benchmark (queries, expected answers, raw outputs, and generated SQL/Cypher), running each query multiple times, and obtaining independent human annotations with agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen's κ). At minimum, the results should be presented as a pilot study rather than as definitive comparative acc
  2. [§3.2, §5] The paper attributes the strong results to the framework's components — schema introspection, iterative retry, and cross-database chaining — but provides no ablation or comparison against a direct LLM baseline (e.g., a single-prompt, no-retry, no-schema-context setting). Because 'query success' is defined as successful execution within the retry limit, that metric is saturated by construction and carries little discriminative power; the meaningful metric is answer correctness. Without a baseline, it is unclear whether the orchestration adds value beyond the raw LLM's native ability to generate SQL/Cypher from a prompt. I recommend adding an ablation study that removes each framework component, or at least one no-framework baseline, to substantiate the contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] Table 4 is very hard to parse. The caption says '-' denotes a correct response, but the cell alignment in the rendered table is ambiguous: for example, the PostGIS Q1 row appears to show 'Building -[Failed to return distinct types.]' in the GPT-OSS column, which conflicts with GPT-OSS's perfect score in Table 2. Please restructure the table (e.g., separate sub-tables per model, color-coding, or explicit cell rows) so that each failure description is clearly attributable to the correct model.
  2. [Throughout] Model naming is inconsistent: 'GPT-OSS (120B)' in Table 1 vs 'GPT-OSS' in the text; 'Gemini 3.1' vs 'Gemini 3.1 (Flash Lite)' in §5; 'GPT-5.x' in §3.2 vs 'GPT-5.4' elsewhere. Please harmonize the model names and versions.
  3. [§4] The statement 'Conversational queries (5 interactions; N=17)' is unclear. Please specify whether N counts individual user turns across the five interactions, and how multi-turn sequences are scored in the per-query metrics (e.g., whether each turn is an independent query or whether the sequence is scored holistically).
  4. [§3.2 / §5] No data or code availability statement is provided. Given the paper's emphasis on reproducibility and the current non-release of the benchmark, a clear statement on artifact availability (even if 'available upon request') should be added.
  5. [Table 3] Example responses such as 'Found 10 results. Showing first 5: [list]' suggest a truncation policy. If the system limits the number of displayed results, please explain how the framework decides what to show and whether truncation affects answer correctness when a user asks for a specific number of items.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: CityLLM is an empirical systems evaluation; the central claim rests on an internal benchmark whose labels are author-scored, which is a reproducibility/validity concern, not a circularity of derivation.

full rationale

CityLLM does not claim to derive a result from first principles; it presents an architecture and measures query success on 54 hand-curated queries. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The only potentially self-referential element is the evaluation protocol in §4: 'All three criteria were checked manually by the authors, comparing each response and visualization against the expected result for that query.' This makes the benchmark internal and raises reproducibility threats (no released rubric, no inter-annotator agreement, single run per query), but correctness is not defined in terms of the system's own outputs; the expected answers are independent facts about the Rotterdam CityJSON/OSM data. Such a protocol is a measurement-quality concern, not a case where an equation or prediction reduces to its input by construction. Self-citations (Lamsal and Zlatanova 2026; Lamsal et al. 2026) appear only in future-work suggestions and are not load-bearing. Therefore no circularity is established; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted scientific constants are introduced. The central claim rests on representativeness of the Rotterdam dataset, the reliability of author-made correctness judgments, single-run execution, and the validity of the curated 54-query benchmark; all are domain assumptions rather than derived facts.

free parameters (2)
  • iteration_limit = 3
    Maximum retry attempts for query refinement; hand-set in §4. It influences query success rate but is not fitted.
  • chain_limit = 3
    Maximum steps in cross-database chaining; hand-set in §4. Not fitted, but affects ability to answer multi-step queries.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Rotterdam CityJSON dataset (853 LoD2 buildings) is a representative semantic 3D city model.
    Used as sole evaluation dataset (§4); generalization to other cities/datasets is assumed.
  • domain assumption Authors' manual scoring of answer and visualization correctness is reliable ground truth.
    §4: 'All three criteria were checked manually by the authors'; no inter-annotator agreement or external judges.
  • domain assumption A single execution per query reflects typical LLM performance.
    LLMs are stochastic; no repeated runs or confidence intervals are reported (§4, §5).
  • domain assumption The 54 curated queries cover the relevant space of user intents.
    Queries were designed by the authors (§4); no user study or external query corpus is used.
  • domain assumption OSM extraction and linking of amenities to junctions are correct.
    Street network and amenities are derived from OSM with OSMnx and assumed correct (§4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CityLLM: A framework for natural-language querying of semantic 3D city models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WPSCQWQ

@misc{pith2026260714542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CityLLM: A framework for natural-language querying of semantic 3D city models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WPSCQWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14542}
}
read the original abstract

Semantic 3D city models provide rich geometric and semantic information, but remain challenging for non-experts and interdisciplinary researchers to access and query due to their complex structures and specialized data formats. To address this issue, we present CityLLM, a framework for natural-language querying of semantic 3D city models alongside complementary urban datasets. The framework combines spatial and graph databases within an LLM-based workflow that supports iterative query refinement and cross-database chaining. We evaluate CityLLM on a CityJSON dataset of Rotterdam (853 LoD2 buildings) using GPT-OSS, Gemini 3.1, and GPT-5.4, along with selected variants, across multiple metrics: answer correctness, visualization correctness, query success, and retry attempts. A total of 54 natural-language queries are curated across four scenarios: spatial, graph, cross-database, and conversational. Results show strong overall performance, with answer correctness ranging from 85.2% to 100%, visualization correctness from 92.9% to 100%, a 100% query success rate, and fewer than three retries across all 54 queries. Overall, the findings suggest that CityLLM provides a lightweight and extensible approach for conversational access to semantic 3D city data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework follows a modular design composed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the CityLLM framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph database (Neo4j) schema. not because it is the only suitable option. More broadly, this second backend is meant to illustrate the framework’s extensib￾ility rather than to be exhaustive, and we treat it as a proof of concept; other sources, such as RDF store, sensor data, vector￾based retrieval over regulatory documents (e.g., for checking height-regulation compliance), are left as natural extensions. 3.2 LLM … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example conversation with CityLLM. iteration limit is reached. The final output is then returned as a natural-language response derived from the retrieved data. 3.3 Interactive Map-based Chat Interface The framework includes an interactive map interface that al￾lows…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative visualization outputs produced by the evaluated LLMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=

    KCitychatBot: A knowledge graph based chatbot system for large-scale CityGML dataset , author=. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=

  2. [2]

    ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=

    Automatic Enrichment of Semantic 3D City Models using Large Language Models , author=. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=

  3. [3]

    12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023) , pages=

    Geoqamap-geographic question answering with maps leveraging LLM and open knowledge base (short paper) , author=. 12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023) , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  4. [4]

    SPRS Geospatial Week (GSW) 2025 , year=

    Advanced User Interaction with Urban Digital Twins using Large Language Models , author=. SPRS Geospatial Week (GSW) 2025 , year=

    2025

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , year=

    NALSpatial: A Natural Language Interface for Spatial Databases , author=. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , year=

  6. [6]

    3D geo-information sciences , pages=

    Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML , author=. 3D geo-information sciences , pages=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  7. [7]

    Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards , volume=

    CityJSON: A compact and easy-to-use encoding of the CityGML data model , author=. Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  8. [8]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=

    CityGML--Interoperable semantic 3D city models , author=. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=

    Hierarchical attention feature fusion-based network for land cover change detection with homogeneous and heterogeneous remote sensing images , author=. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  2. [10]

    ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=

    Mapping geospatial AI flood risk in national road networks , author=. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  3. [11]

    International Journal of Digital Earth , volume=

    Autonomous GIS: the next-generation AI-powered GIS , author=. International Journal of Digital Earth , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems , pages=

    An automatic approach to finding geographic name changes on historical maps , author=. Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems , pages=

  5. [13]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    Geospatial mapping of distribution grid with machine learning and publicly-accessible multi-modal data , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=

    Towards the next generation of Geospatial Artificial Intelligence , author=. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14251 , year=

    Towards a Barrier-free GeoQA Portal: Natural Language Interaction with Geospatial Data Using Multi-Agent LLMs and Semantic Search , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14251 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=

    LLM-enhanced disaster geolocalization using implicit geoinformation from multimodal data: A case study of Hurricane Harvey , author=. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  9. [17]

    International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=

    GeoGraphRAG: A graph-based retrieval-augmented generation approach for empowering large language models in automated geospatial modeling , author=. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  10. [20]

    Electronics , volume=

    Artificial intelligence-enabled metaverse for sustainable smart cities: Technologies, applications, challenges, and future directions , author=. Electronics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  11. [21]

    IET Smart Cities , volume=

    Question answering system for smart cities and urban planning with The World Avatar , author=. IET Smart Cities , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  12. [22]

    Data-Centric Engineering , volume=

    Universal digital twin-a dynamic knowledge graph , author=. Data-Centric Engineering , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  13. [23]

    2012 , publisher=

    R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language , author=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  14. [24]

    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=

    OGC-AI: A Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model Interface for Open Geospatial Consortium Web Services , author=. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  15. [25]

    International Journal of Geographical Information Science , volume=

    GeoAI: spatially explicit artificial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge discovery and beyond , author=. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  16. [26]

    Computational intelligence and neuroscience , volume=

    Deep learning for computer vision: A brief review , author=. Computational intelligence and neuroscience , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  17. [27]

    Science , volume=

    Advances in natural language processing , author=. Science , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  18. [28]

    2010 , publisher=

    Manual of geospatial science and technology , author=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  19. [29]

    Environmental Health , volume=

    Emerging trends in geospatial artificial intelligence (geoAI): potential applications for environmental epidemiology , author=. Environmental Health , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  20. [30]

    International Journal of Geographical Information Science , volume=

    A review of location encoding for GeoAI: methods and applications , author=. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  21. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , year=

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [33]

    Student thesis series INES , year=

    Linked geodata: CityGML represented as a virtual knowledge graph , author=. Student thesis series INES , year=

  23. [34]

    Geographical Analysis , volume=

    Modeling and analyzing urban networks and amenities with OSMnx , author=. Geographical Analysis , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  24. [36]

    Automation in Construction , volume=

    Text-based automatic knowledge graph construction for road infrastructure operations management , author=. Automation in Construction , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  25. [37]

    ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume =

    Lamsal, Rabindra and Zlatanova, Sisi , title =. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , volume =. 2026 , pages =

    2026

  26. [38]

    Automation in Construction , volume=

    LLM-enabled multi-agent framework for natural language interaction with graph-based digital twins , author=. Automation in Construction , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  27. [39]

    3D City Database: The Open Source CityGML Database

    3dcitydb Contributors , 2025 . 3D City Database: The Open Source CityGML Database . https://github.com/3dcitydb/3dcitydb

    2025

  28. [40]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S. et al., 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Universal digital twin-a dynamic knowledge graph

    Akroyd, J., Mosbach, S., Bhave, A., Kraft, M., 2021. Universal digital twin-a dynamic knowledge graph. Data-Centric Engineering , 2, e14

    2021

  30. [42]

    Modeling and analyzing urban networks and amenities with OSMnx

    Boeing, G., 2025. Modeling and analyzing urban networks and amenities with OSMnx. Geographical Analysis , 57(4), 567--577

    2025

  31. [43]

    Consortium, W. W. W. et al., 2012. R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language

    2012

  32. [44]

    Y., Ang, W., Phua, S

    Deng, X., Tsai, Y.-K., Ganguly, S., Tran, D., Quek, H. Y., Ang, W., Phua, S. Z., Mosbach, S., Akroyd, J., Kraft, M., 2025. Question answering system for smart cities and urban planning with The World Avatar. IET Smart Cities , 7(1), e70009

    2025

  33. [45]

    Geoqamap-geographic question answering with maps leveraging llm and open knowledge base (short paper)

    Feng, Y., Ding, L., Xiao, G., 2023. Geoqamap-geographic question answering with maps leveraging llm and open knowledge base (short paper). 12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023), Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum f \"u r Informatik, 28--1

    2023

  34. [46]

    o ger, G., Pl \

    Gr \"o ger, G., Pl \"u mer, L., 2012. CityGML--Interoperable semantic 3D city models. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , 71, 12--33

    2012

  35. [47]

    Linked geodata: CityGML represented as a virtual knowledge graph

    Hansson, F., 2024. Linked geodata: CityGML represented as a virtual knowledge graph. Student thesis series INES

    2024

  36. [48]

    H., 2025a

    Kanna, K., Kolbe, T. H., 2025a. Advanced user interaction with urban digital twins using large language models. SPRS Geospatial Week (GSW) 2025

    2025

  37. [49]

    H., 2025b

    Kanna, K., Kolbe, T. H., 2025b. Automatic enrichment of semantic 3d city models using large language models. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 10, 105--112

  38. [50]

    H., 2009

    Kolbe, T. H., 2009. Representing and exchanging 3d city models with citygml. 3D geo-information sciences, Springer, 15--31

    2009

  39. [51]

    Query2property: Semantic retrieval of ifc properties for natural language bim queries

    Lamsal, R., Zlatanova, S., 2026. Query2property: Semantic retrieval of ifc properties for natural language bim queries. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XI-4-2026, 323--330

    2026

  40. [52]

    X., 2026

    Lamsal, R., Zlatanova, S., Xu, H., Sun, Y., Shen, J. X., 2026. IfcLLM: Natural Language Querying of IFC Models through Complementary Relational and Graph Representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.13236

    2026 arXiv

  41. [53]

    CityJSON: A compact and easy-to-use encoding of the CityGML data model

    Ledoux, H., Arroyo Ohori, K., Kumar, K., Dukai, B., Labetski, A., Vitalis, S., 2019. CityJSON: A compact and easy-to-use encoding of the CityGML data model. Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards , 4(1), 1--12

    2019

  42. [54]

    GeoGraphRAG: A graph-based retrieval-augmented generation approach for empowering large language models in automated geospatial modeling

    Liang, J., Hou, S., Jiao, H., Qing, Y., Zhao, A., Shen, Z., Xiang, L., Wu, H., 2025. GeoGraphRAG: A graph-based retrieval-augmented generation approach for empowering large language models in automated geospatial modeling. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and...

    2025

  43. [55]

    Artificial intelligence-enabled metaverse for sustainable smart cities: Technologies, applications, challenges, and future directions

    Lifelo, Z., Ding, J., Ning, H., Dhelim, S., 2024. Artificial intelligence-enabled metaverse for sustainable smart cities: Technologies, applications, challenges, and future directions. Electronics , 13(24), 4874

    2024

  44. [56]

    Kcitychatbot: A knowledge graph based chatbot system for large-scale citygml dataset

    Liu, S.-q., Wang, C., 2025. Kcitychatbot: A knowledge graph based chatbot system for large-scale citygml dataset. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 48, 99--105

    2025

  45. [57]

    LLM-enabled multi-agent framework for natural language interaction with graph-based digital twins

    Pan, Y., Wang, M., Lu, L., Lamsal, R., P \"a rn, E., Zlatanova, S., Brilakis, I., 2026. LLM-enabled multi-agent framework for natural language interaction with graph-based digital twins. Automation in Construction , 183, 106791

    2026

  46. [58]

    OGC-AI: A Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model Interface for Open Geospatial Consortium Web Services

    Santhanavanich, T., Coors, V., 2025. OGC-AI: A Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model Interface for Open Geospatial Consortium Web Services. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , 48, 157--163

    2025

  47. [59]

    Text-based automatic knowledge graph construction for road infrastructure operations management

    Sun, Y., Shen, X., Zlatanova, S., Barati, K., Linke, J., 2026. Text-based automatic knowledge graph construction for road infrastructure operations management. Automation in Construction , 182, 106733

    2026

  48. [60]

    Wikidata Query Service

    Wikidata , 2025 . Wikidata Query Service . https://query.wikidata.org/

    2025

  49. [61]

    Urban generative intelligence (ugi): A foundational platform for agents in embodied city environment

    Xu, F., Zhang, J., Gao, C., Feng, J., Li, Y., 2023. Urban generative intelligence (ugi): A foundational platform for agents in embodied city environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11813

    2023 arXiv

  50. [62]

    LLM-enhanced disaster geolocalization using implicit geoinformation from multimodal data: A case study of Hurricane Harvey

    Yin, W., Xue, Y., Liu, Z., Li, H., Werner, M., 2025. LLM-enhanced disaster geolocalization using implicit geoinformation from multimodal data: A case study of Hurricane Harvey. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , 137, 104423

    2025

  51. [63]

    Towards urban general intelligence: A review and outlook of urban foundation models

    Zhang, W., Han, J., Xu, Z., Ni, H., Liu, H., Xiong, H., 2024. Towards urban general intelligence: A review and outlook of urban foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01749

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.