MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194511149 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14357

Roominoes: Generating Novel 3D Floor Plans From Existing 3D Rooms

2021· article· en· W3194511149 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Wang, Xianghao Xu, Leon Lei, Selena Ling, Natalie Lindsay, Anne Lynn S. Chang, Manolis Savva, Daniel Ritchie

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Task (project management)Floor planSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Realistic 3D indoor scene datasets have enabled significant recent progress in computer vision, scene understanding, autonomous navigation, and 3D reconstruction. But the scale, diversity, and customizability of existing datasets is limited, and it is time‐consuming and expensive to scan and annotate more. Fortunately, combinatorics is on our side: there are enough individual rooms in existing 3D scene datasets, if there was but a way to recombine them into new layouts. In this paper, we propose the task of generating novel 3D floor plans from existing 3D rooms. We identify three sub‐tasks of this problem: generation of 2D layout, retrieval of compatible 3D rooms, and deformation of 3D rooms to fit the layout. We then discuss different strategies for solving the problem, and design two representative pipelines: one uses available 2D floor plans to guide selection and deformation of 3D rooms; the other learns to retrieve a set of compatible 3D rooms and combine them into novel layouts. We design a set of metrics that evaluate the generated results with respect to each of the three subtasks and show that different methods trade off performance on these subtasks. Finally, we survey downstream tasks that benefit from generated 3D scenes and discuss strategies in selecting the methods most appropriate for the demands of these tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207