arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.22878

Immersive Focus+Context Techniques to Assist in Interpretation of High Density Forest Point Clouds

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) is changing how we interact with complex spatial datasets. VR has the potential within forestry to help analyse remotely sensed spatial data for inventory management. However, challenges of scale and legibility of dense forest point clouds must be addressed. To do so, we present three VR Focus+Context (F+C) techniques: Wedgelight, Remote Lantern, and Ray Lantern. These techniques present point cloud data using a constrained highdetail focus within a broader abstracted context representation, manipulated using egocentric and exocentric interactions. We conducted two user studies. The first informed the design of the F+C techniques. The results from the first study indicate that VR significantly outperforms desktop displays in basic analysis of forestry point clouds, with improvements to both time and accuracy. The second study evaluated the performance of the resulting F+C techniques in a task analogous to real-world forestry operations. Our F+C techniques significantly outperformed current approaches, confirming their viability for facilitating detailed and effective forest assessments. These findings indicate that VR has significant advantages for spatial data analysis tasks in forestry, making a strong argument for its adoption in future analytical frameworks. The F+C visualisation techniques we introduced show considerable promise for analysis of high density point clouds, opening new avenues for development in immersive analytics. Supplemental materials (code, scans, results) are available at https://osf.io/hqc9u.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Spencer O'Keeffe, Jan Rombouts, Bruce H Thomas, Michelle Balasso, Jim O'Hehir, Andrew Cunningham. 2026-10-16. Immersive Focus+Context Techniques to Assist in Interpretation of High Density Forest Point Clouds. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar62088.2024.00112

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

How Children Design and Reason about Trustworthy AI Chatbots

Children increasingly interact with AI chatbots, making trust calibration essential to AI literacy. Prior research has examined children's trust in AI mainly as users evaluating systems built by others, rather than as designers of their own chatbots. We developed a chatbot-building environment with adjustable trust-relevant traits (e.g., confidence, transparency, formality, assertiveness), rules, and persona. We conducted mixed-methods study with 115 learners (ages 8-18) who made 119 chatbots. We examined how children configured their chatbots, reasoned about trustworthiness, and how closely chatbot behavior aligned with their designs. Younger students (age 10-13) set significantly higher confidence than older students (age 14-18), and some deliberately built chatbots that gave wrong answers on purpose, yet still called them trustworthy, arguing that a chatbot does what it was built to do. Younger students equated trust with purpose-fulfillment, while older students linked it to transparent, calibrated design. Students also calibrated academic chatbots to be more transparent and formal than hobby chatbots. We identify seven design dimensions describing what children believe makes a chatbot trustworthy, and discuss implications for AI literacy tools.

cs.HC↗

Designing Human-AI Collaborative Science: The 9A Framework

Artificial intelligence (AI) for Science is often described as a progression from human-directed assistance toward increasingly autonomous AI scientists. Human-AI collaboration offers a further mode in which human and AI contributions substantively shape scientific reasoning, judgments, and the course of inquiry. Existing research addresses work allocation, human-AI coordination, and system evaluation, but how these aspects interact to shape collaborative scientific systems remains insufficiently articulated. We develop the 9A Framework for Human-AI Collaborative Science (HACS) to connect these considerations across three layers. The organization layer specifies what scientific activities are required (Activity), who performs them (Actor), and who holds authority over consequential decisions (Authority). The coordination layer addresses how participants access relevant research information (Awareness), how scientific work advances through iterative proposal, execution, examination, revision, and resolution (Accountability), and when collaborative arrangements should be adjusted (Adaptability). The evaluation layer establishes what constitutes effective system performance (Achievement), how comparisons can be designed to identify the effects of organizational and coordination choices (Attribution), and what evidence supports the resulting conclusions (Assurance). Together, these layers frame HACS as a system-design problem, providing a basis for designing collaborative scientific workflows and for empirically comparing their effectiveness.

cs.HC↗

PersonaCUABench: Benchmarking Computer-Use Agents Serving Diverse Personas

Computer-use agents (CUAs) are commonly evaluated against fixed task specifications, but users may omit requirements, add constraints, or require approval before consequential actions. Completing the benchmark instruction does not guarantee serving the person who asked. We introduce PersonaCUABench, which holds 74 tasks across 11 domains fixed and varies only who asks. A persona agent, playing one of 44 personas in four groups, rewrites each instruction in that user's own words and answers the CUA's questions, while the CUA sees only the dialogue, never the profile or the original instruction. Across nine backbones (3,330 runs), mean task completion falls by 36% relative to the original requests. The losses have two sources: in 59.9% of cells that lose points, the agent engages with what the user asked for and still gets it wrong, and 11.2% are stops the user requested that the checker scores as failures. Even when a persona request is fully completed, the user gives the top satisfaction rating in only 62.7% of cells, against 84.1% for the original requests. CUAs should therefore be evaluated not only on task completion but also on whether they meet the requirements and constraints users express. Code: https://github.com/MatrAIx-ai/PersonaCUABench. Project page: https://matraix.ai/research/persona-cua.html

cs.HC↗