Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a learning framework for automated floorplan generation which combines generative modeling using deep neural networks and user-in-the-loop designs to enable human users to provide sparse design constraints. Such constraints are represented by a layout graph. The core component of our learning framework is a deep neural network, Graph2Plan, which converts a layout graph, along with a building boundary, into a floorplan that fulfills both the layout and boundary constraints. Given an input building boundary, we allow a user to specify room counts and other layout constraints, which are used to retrieve a set of floorplans, with their associated layout graphs, from a database. For each retrieved layout graph, along with the input boundary, Graph2Plan first generates a corresponding raster floorplan image, and then a refined set of boxes representing the rooms. Graph2Plan is trained on RPLAN, a large-scale dataset consisting of 80K annotated floorplans. The network is mainly based on convolutional processing over both the layout graph, via a graph neural network (GNN), and the input building boundary, as well as the raster floorplan images, via conventional image convolution. We demonstrate the quality and versatility of our floorplan generation framework in terms of its ability to cater to different user inputs. We conduct both qualitative and quantitative evaluations, ablation studies, and comparisons with state-of-the-art approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.018 |
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".