Rent3D: Floor-plan priors for monocular layout estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to enable a 3D “virtual-tour” of an apartment given a small set of monocular images of different rooms, as well as a 2D floor plan. We frame the problem as inference in a Markov Random Field which reasons about the layout of each room and its relative pose (3D rotation and translation) within the full apartment. This gives us accurate camera pose in the apartment for each image. What sets us apart from past work in layout estimation is the use of floor plans as a source of prior knowledge, as well as localization of each image within a bigger space (apartment). In particular, we exploit the floor plan to impose aspect ratio constraints across the layouts of different rooms, as well as to extract semantic information, e.g., the location of windows which are marked in floor plans. We show that this information can significantly help in resolving the challenging room-apartment alignment problem. We also derive an efficient exact inference algorithm which takes only a few ms per apartment. This is due to the fact that we exploit integral geometry as well as our new bounds on the aspect ratio of rooms which allow us to carve the space, significantly reducing the number of physically possible configurations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a new dataset which contains over 200 apartments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".