PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Contrastive Graph Autoencoder for Geometric Polygon Retrieval from Building Datasets

Zexian Huang, Kourosh Khoshelham, Martin Tomko

self/semi-supervised learningpolygon shape retrievalgraph autoencodergraph contrastive learningunsupervised graph clusteringbuilding footprints
11.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
11.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
9.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Retrieval of polygon geometries with similar shapes from maps is a challenging geographic information task. Existing approaches can not process geometry polygons with complex shapes, (multiple) holes and are sensitive to geometric transformations (e.g., rotation and reflection). We propose Contrastive Graph Autoencoder (CGAE), a robust and effective graph representation autoencoder for extracting polygon geometries of similar shapes from real-world building maps based on template queries. By leveraging graph message-passing layer, graph feature augmentation and contrastive learning, the proposed CGAE reconstructs graph features of w.r.t input graph representations of polygons. The CGAE outperforms existing graph-based autoencoder on multiple polygon datasets in the task of similar shape retrieval of polygons. Experimentally, we show that our approach is capable of identifying and extracting similar complex polygon geometries with or without holes from polygonal datasets, based on template queries. Further experiments demonstrate that our approach is highly robust to geometrical transformations in contrast to existing GAE model, indicating the strong generalizability and versatility of CGAE in identifying complex real-world building footprints.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 38 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 30% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)