Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PolyLayout recovers multi-room 3D layouts from posed images by optimizing a learned featuremetric cost over Manhattan polygons, and reports accuracy rivaling point-cloud methods on new benchmarks.

desk verdict PolyLayout is a credible next step from the authors' own PixCuboid, generalizing cuboids to Manhattan polygons with adaptive topology and multi-room sharing; strong results on new benchmarks, but the coverage-curated evaluation makes the robustness claim broader than the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03323 v1 pith:YKMMDVT7 submitted 2026-08-04 cs.CV

Gustav Hanning , Shaohui Liu , Rémi Pautrat , Marc Pollefeys , Kalle {AA}ström , Viktor Larsson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords roomlayoutestimationmulti-viewManhattanworldfeaturemetricalignmentpolygonparameterizationmulti-roomoptimizationScanNet++indoorsceneunderstanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper presents PolyLayout, a method that reconstructs the 3D layout of one or more rooms (walls, floor, ceiling) from a set of posed perspective images, without needing point clouds. Each room is represented as a Manhattan polygon whose edges align with three principal axes, and the layout is refined by minimizing a cost that combines multi-view consistency of learned deep features, edge alignment, vanishing-point agreement, and a perimeter regularizer. The core claim is that separating the learned scoring from explicit model-based geometry (camera projection and polygon updates) makes the method generalize to new datasets and camera parameters, and that jointly optimizing multiple rooms while sharing orientation and floor/ceiling height improves accuracy. On two new benchmarks derived from Aria Synthetic Environments and ScanNet++ v2, PolyLayout outperforms prior image-based methods, and on the synthetic set its accuracy approaches that of a point-cloud baseline (SceneScript) that uses a semi-dense SLAM point cloud.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is the Manhattan polygon parameterization with a learned cost. In the local frame, a room is described by a rotation $R$ and plane offsets $d=(d_1,\dots,d_p)$: floor $z=d_1$, ceiling $z=d_2$, and walls alternating between $x$ and $y$ planes. The optimization minimizes $E(P)=E_{\mathrm{feat}}+\alpha E_{\mathrm{edge}}+\beta E_{\mathrm{VP}}+\gamma E_{\mathrm{per}}$, where $E_{\mathrm{feat}}$ warps deep features between views via the polygon's induced homographies, $E_{\mathrm{edge}}$ aligns polygon edges with predicted edge maps, $E_{\mathrm{VP}}$ matches the three vanishing points to detected line segments, and $E_{\mathrm{per}}$ penalizes perimeter complexity to prevent uno

What would settle it

Take a real room with known floor plan and place all cameras near its center, so the α-shape initialization is a small polygon far from the true walls; predict the layout with PolyLayout. If the method recovers the outer walls anyway, the learned featuremetric cost can overcome poor initialization; if, as the paper's design implies, it converges to a layout close to the small initial polygon, that confirms the initialization dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a room layout can be estimated accurately by treating it as a parametric Manhattan polygon and optimizing a learned featuremetric cost with explicit, differentiable geometry. The method uses a DINOv2-based network to predict dense feature, edge, and confidence maps; these maps define an optimization objective that measures how well a candidate polygon explains the multi-view consistency of the features, the location of predicted edges, and the vanishing points implied by the Manhattan frame. The polygon is initialized from the camera positions using an α-shape concave hull, then refined with Levenberg-Marquardt steps while walls are adaptively split or merged. B

Load-bearing premise

The method can only recover walls that are visible in at least one input image and whose location is reachable from the initial polygon built from the camera positions; if the cameras do not encircle the room footprint or a wall is never seen, that wall cannot be pulled to its true position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PolyLayout can represent general Manhattan rooms (L-shaped, etc.) without fixing the number of walls in advance; the wall count is determined at inference by split and merge operations.
  • Jointly optimizing multiple rooms with shared orientation and floor/ceiling height improves accuracy and convergence compared with per-room estimation, so the method scales naturally to building-scale scenes.
  • Because the method uses only posed RGB images, it applies to data from SLAM or Structure-from-Motion pipelines, without requiring depth sensors or dense point clouds.
  • On the newly introduced ASE and ScanNet++ v2 benchmarks, PolyLayout outperforms PixCuboid, Plane-DUSt3R, and RoomFormer, and its ASE accuracy is close to that of SceneScript with a semi-dense SLAM point cloud.
  • The two new benchmarks provide the first multi-view multi-room layout evaluation sets with ground-truth 3D layouts, enabling future comparisons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the separation of learned scoring from model-based geometry is the true source of generalization, similar 'learned cost + explicit optimization' designs could improve other structured reconstruction tasks, such as floor-plan recovery from panoramas, where current methods either fix the model class or rely on black-box prediction.
  • The method's dependence on the camera-derived initial polygon suggests that a learned or search-based initialization might recover walls not visible in any single view, a limitation the paper's own failure cases attribute to unobserved scene parts.
  • The benchmarks cover only Manhattan (or near-Manhattan) rooms; adapting the polygon framework to Atlanta-world or non-orthogonal walls would be a natural next step and remains untested.
  • At roughly 3.5–5.5 seconds per scene, the method is not yet real-time, but the architecture is modular; replacing the DINOv2 encoder with a lighter backbone could trade accuracy for speed in robotics or AR applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PolyLayout, a multi-view multi-room Manhattan layout estimation method. Room layouts are represented as 3D Manhattan polygons and estimated by optimizing a learned featuremetric objective, with explicit, model-based camera projection and polygon updates, and adaptive wall split/simplification during optimization. Rooms are optimized jointly, sharing orientation and optionally floor/ceiling height. The authors introduce two new annotated benchmarks based on Aria Synthetic Environments and ScanNet++ v2, and report that PolyLayout outperforms prior multi-view and point-cloud baselines on accuracy and robustness. The main text includes ablations on parameter sharing, network backbone, cost terms, initialization, and topology updates, plus an experiment with predicted camera poses and a comparison to point-cloud cuboid fitting.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful advance: it generalizes cuboid-only multi-view layout estimation to Manhattan polygons, introduces an explicit geometry/learned-scoring separation that may transfer across datasets, and provides two new benchmarks with annotations. The ablation study is informative, and the paper is candid about failure cases. The core optimization formulation is plausible and the comparisons with alternative cost terms and networks are valuable. However, the evaluation protocol has several load-bearing weaknesses, described below, that prevent the current version from fully supporting the headline robustness and generalization claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Table 1] The aggregation rule for the per-scene metrics is not defined. The text says 'we adopt ... metrics proposed in [13], but compute them per scene instead of per room for ASE and ScanNet++' without specifying whether IoU is the mean of per-room IoUs, a scene-level volume union/intersection, or another rule; the same ambiguity applies to Chamfer distance and the recall metrics. Since Table 1 mixes methods that run per room (PixCuboid, Plane-DUSt3R) with methods that run per scene (PolyLayout, RoomFormer, SceneScript), the comparison is only meaningful if the aggregation is exactly the same and reported. Please provide the precise formulas and report both per-scene and per-room aggregates for all methods.
  2. [Sec. 7.4, Sec. 3.4, Fig. 8] The evaluation protocol encodes a strong coverage prior that is load-bearing for PolyLayout. ASE images are selected with a visibility-based sampling score (Eq. 9), and images whose camera center is outside the ground-truth layout or with >10% door pixels are excluded; ScanNet++ similarly excludes images whose camera center is outside the layout. PolyLayout's initialization is an alpha-shape of camera positions buffered by delta=3 m, and the failure cases in Fig. 8 show that walls unobserved in all views cannot be recovered. The reported numbers are therefore conditional on engineered coverage and do not support the Abstract's unqualified robustness claim. Please evaluate on naturally sampled or unfiltered image sets, and quantitatively vary the image coverage (number of views, visibility-aware vs. random sampling) to demonstrate robustness.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] Baseline comparisons involve oracle information or distribution leakage. SceneScript's point cloud is filtered to points inside the ground-truth layouts or within 1 m of them, and the ASE test set is stated to be a subset of SceneScript's training scenes. RoomFormer lifts 2D polygons to 3D using ground-truth floor/ceiling height. For 2D-3D-Semantics, single-view methods are evaluated by selecting the prediction with maximum IoU against ground truth. These protocol choices make the relative comparison difficult to interpret. The paper should either avoid ground-truth-derived filtering/lifting, or present an additional comparison where all baselines use the same amount of oracle information, and clearly disclose the effect of these choices.
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] No uncertainty quantification is provided. All metrics are point estimates on a single split (100 ASE scenes, 80 ScanNet++ scenes, 160 rooms in 2D-3D-S). The large gaps over SceneScript and Plane-DUSt3R are clear, but several claims in Sec. 5.2 rely on small differences (e.g., orientation sharing vs. none, DINOv2 vs. ResNet, and the 2D-3D-S comparison where PixCuboid has higher wall/room recall in Table 1). Report standard deviations, bootstrap confidence intervals, or significance tests over scenes and/or image subset samplings so that the reader can assess whether the differences are meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Table 1] The statement 'No other method show competitive results on this dataset' (2D-3D-Semantics) is contradicted by PixCuboid's wall recall 93.8 vs. 92.2 and room recall 85.0 vs. 80.6 in the same table. Please soften or qualify this claim.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (7)] The perimeter cost includes a sum over i=4..p-1 of |d_{i+1} - d_{i-1}|, but the relationship between the plane offsets and the polygon edge lengths is not explicit. A short derivation would help the reader understand the geometric meaning of each term.
  3. [Sec. 7.1, Sec. 3.4] Free parameters such as the alpha-shape parameter, rasterization pixel size (1 m), and buffer distance delta=3 m are stated only in the supplementary. Since the ablation study does not vary these parameters, the sensitivity of the method to them is unknown; please report at least a validation-set sensitivity check.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Table 1] The prediction-time comparison excludes DeepLSD line detection and dense COLMAP reconstruction. This should be stated directly in the main text, not only in the table footnote, to avoid an unfair efficiency impression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; empirical claims are tested against external baselines and new held-out benchmarks, with only disclosed reuse of prior same-author components.

full rationale

PolyLayout's derivation is not circular. The method takes posed images and optimizes a polygon by minimizing a learned featuremetric cost plus edge, vanishing-point, and perimeter costs (Eqs. 1-7). The network is trained on a separate training set (391 cuboid rooms from [13] plus 107 new Manhattan annotations) with supervision on ground-truth 2D-3D correspondences (Eq. 8), and evaluated on held-out test sets of ASE and ScanNet++ with external baselines (Plane-DUSt3R, SceneScript, RoomFormer) using official implementations. The reuse of PixCuboid's loss terms and training scheme is disclosed and is not load-bearing: ablations (Tab. 2) isolate the contributions of the DINOv2 backbone, polygon initialization, and simplify/split topology, and Tab. 5 shows PolyLayout with the same ResNet backbone still outperforms PixCuboid on the new datasets. The visibility-based image sampling in Sec. 7.4 conditions the benchmarks on wall coverage, which matters for external validity of the robustness claim, but it does not make the predicted layouts equivalent to the sampling criterion or to the ground truth by construction. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present; the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's accuracy depends on a set of hyperparameters (cost weights, sampling constants, geometric tolerances) chosen on the validation set, and on domain assumptions about Manhattan geometry, known poses, image assignment, and the reliability of learned feature alignment. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (13)
  • alpha (edge cost weight) = 0.05
    Chosen on the validation set to balance featuremetric and edge costs.
  • beta (vanishing point cost weight) = 40
    Tuned on the validation set.
  • gamma (perimeter cost weight) = 5e-4 (coarse/medium scales), 0 at finest
    Tuned on validation; disabled at finest scale to avoid biasing final layouts.
  • kappa (confidence sampling exponent) = 4
    Controls the probability map from which featuremetric points are sampled.
  • delta (buffer distance for initialization) = 3 m
    Expansion of the α-shape around camera positions; affects how far the initial polygon extends beyond the cameras.
  • pmax (maximum number of planes) = 32
    Cap on polygon complexity during wall splitting.
  • tau (vanishing point distance cap) = 0.05 (final), initialized at 1 and halved per iteration
    Cap for line-to-vanishing-point assignment in the VP cost.
  • Number of LM steps per scale = 15
    Heuristic for convergence of the coarse-to-fine optimization.
  • Simplification importance threshold = 0.5
    Controls wall removal in the modified Visvalingam-Whyatt algorithm.
  • Wall removal convergence threshold = |Δd_i| < 5 cm
    Determines when a wall is eligible for removal during simplification.
  • Feature sampling points per view = 256
    Number of points sampled for the featuremetric cost in each view.
  • Edge sampling points per edge = 40
    Number of points sampled uniformly along every polygon edge for the edge cost.
  • Wall split threshold = 1 m (iteratively split widest wall until all walls narrower than this)
    Topology refinement: controls how many walls are introduced.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Manhattan world assumption: all walls are axis-aligned in a single global frame and floor/ceiling are horizontal.
    The layout parameterization (Sec 3.1) restricts wall planes to alternate between x and y offsets in a local frame defined by R; if a room is not Manhattan, the representation cannot express the true geometry.
  • domain assumption Known camera poses and intrinsics.
    The method takes as input images with known poses and intrinsics (Sec 3). Sec 5.3 tests predicted poses, but the main pipeline assumes them.
  • domain assumption Featuremetric alignment validity: deep features are sufficiently viewpoint-invariant that minimizing multi-view feature consistency yields correct geometry.
    The cost E_feat (Eq 2) assumes DINOv2-based features plus a learned head give consistent representations of the same 3D point across views; the optimization relies on this for pulling the polygon to true walls.
  • domain assumption Prior knowledge of image-to-room assignment in multi-room scenes.
    Sec 3.6 states 'We further assume prior knowledge of the image assignment for multi-room scenes'; if images are misassigned, the shared-parameter optimization would be corrupted.
  • domain assumption Reliable line segment detection for the vanishing point cost.
    The VP cost (Eq 5) depends on DeepLSD line detections; if line detection fails (e.g., textureless walls), that cost contributes no useful signal, though other costs remain.
  • standard math Levenberg-Marquardt converges to a good local minimum from the given initialization.
    The method uses successive LM steps (Sec 3.2) with no global optimality guarantee; if the initialization is poor, the optimization can settle in a bad local minimum, as indicated by the ablation on initialization strategies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKMMDVT7

@misc{pith2026260803323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKMMDVT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03323}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating room layouts from multi-view imagery is a core task for indoor scene understanding. Existing methods are typically limited either by poor generalization to new datasets or restrictive geometric assumptions of the room shape or camera configuration. Most also estimate rooms independently, failing to exploit shared building structure such as dominant directions, ground plane or ceiling height. We propose PolyLayout, a multi-room layout estimation method that parameterizes room layouts as Manhattan 3D polygons and optimizes them jointly across multiple rooms. The optimization objective is predicted by a neural network on top of robust pre-trained visual features and trained end-to-end with supervision only on output room layouts. At the same time, camera projection and polygon updates remain explicit and model-based. This separation between learned scoring and geometry improves generalization to new datasets and camera parameters. During optimization, PolyLayout adaptively refines the polygon topology through iterative wall split and merge operations while jointly utilizing structural cues across rooms. We introduce two new multi-view multi-room layout benchmarks by providing layout annotations to existing datasets, and experiments show that PolyLayout outperforms prior approaches, both in terms of accuracy and robustness. Project page: https://ghanning.github.io/PolyLayout

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our room layout estimation method PolyLayout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Room layout optimization with PolyLayout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: The walls of the room layout polygon P are defined by axis-aligned planes, alternating between x and y. Right: To initialize P from the positions of the cameras (black points) we first compute the concave hull (red), then buffer it (green) and convert it to a Manhattan polygon through rasterization (orange). sampled basis vectors orthogonal to z form the rotation matrix R. As in [13] we then take a few LM opti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the number of rooms in our ASE and ScanNet++ datasets. The pie charts show the ratio of cuboid (dark color) versus non-cuboid rooms. make sure that the images have sufficient coverage of the scene by employing a visibility-based sampling. Details are gi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons of predicted room layouts for one scene in each of our ASE and ScanNet++ test sets. Predictions are shown in green and the ground truth layouts in blue. The point cloud is displayed only for visualization purposes. Next, the same methods are app…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Room layout predictions (in green) for one scene in our ScanNet++ v2 test set. Ground truth layouts are shown in blue. 8.1 Cuboid Fitting In Algorithm 1 we give the algorithm for fitting a cuboid to a point cloud that was used in Sec. 5.4. It randomly samples points (w…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Room layout predictions for the cuboid-shaped spaces in one area of 2D￾3D-Semantics. Predictions are shown in green and the ground truth layouts in blue. For single-view methods the prediction with highest IoU is visualized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failure cases of PolyLayout in Aria Synthetic Environments. Predictions are shown in green and the ground truth layouts in blue. 8.2 Impact of Network Backbone In this work we propose a DINOv2-based network as an improvement over the ResNet-101 CNN used in PixCuboid [1…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of predicted feature, edge and confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops (2025)

    Hanning, G., Åström, K., Larsson, V.: PixCuboid: Room Layout Estimation from Multi-view Featuremetric Alignment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01105 (2017)

    Armeni, I., Sax, S., Zamir, A.R., Savarese, S.: Joint 2D-3D-Semantic Data for Indoor Scene Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01105 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  3. [2]

    In: European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    Avetisyan, A., Khanova, T., Choy, C., Dash, D., Dai, A., Nießner, M.: SceneCAD: Predicting Object Alignments and Layouts in RGB-D Scans. In: European Con- ference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    Avetisyan, A., Xie, C., Howard-Jenkins, H., Yang, T.Y., Aroudj, S., Patra, S., Zhang, F., Frost, D., Holland, L., Orme, C., Engel, J., Miller, E., Newcombe, R., Balntas, V.: SceneScript: Reconstructing Scenes With An Autoregressive Struc- tured Language Model. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450 (2016)

    Ba, J.L., Kiros, J.R., Hinton, G.E.: Layer Normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450 (2016)

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    Barron, J.T.: A General and Adaptive Robust Loss Function. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (1999)

    Coughlan, J.M., Yuille, A.L.: Manhattan World: Compass Direction from a Single Image by Bayesian Inference. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [7]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2021)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on information theory29(4), 551–559 (2003)

    Edelsbrunner, H., Kirkpatrick, D., Seidel, R.: On the Shape of a Set of Points in the Plane. IEEE Transactions on information theory29(4), 551–559 (2003)

    2003

  2. [9]

    Communi- cations of the ACM24(6), 381–395 (1981)

    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communi- cations of the ACM24(6), 381–395 (1981)

    1981

  3. [10]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2011)

    Flint, A., Murray, D., Reid, I.: Manhattan Scene Understanding Using Monocular, Stereo, and 3D Features. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    Gillies, S., van der Wel, C., Van den Bossche, J., Taves, M.W., Arnott, J., Ward, B.C., others: Shapely (May 2025).https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5597138

    2025 doi

  5. [12]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    Hampali, S., Stekovic, S., Sarkar, S.D., Kumar, C.S., Fraundorfer, F., Lepetit, V.: Monte Carlo Scene Search for 3D Scene Understanding. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2009)

    Hedau, V., Hoiem, D., Forsyth, D.: Recovering the Spatial Layout of Cluttered Rooms. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Inter- national Conference on Multimedia

    Hu, Z., Duan, B., Zhang, Y., Sun, M., Huang, J.: MVLayoutNet: 3D Layout Re- construction with Multi-view Panoramas. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Inter- national Conference on Multimedia. pp. 1289–1298 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    In: Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2020) PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation 17

    Huang,X.,Mei,G.,Zhang,J.:Feature-metricRegistration:AFastSemi-supervised Approach for Robust Point Cloud Registration without Correspondences. In: Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2020) PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation 17

    2020

  10. [18]

    In: International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    Huang, Y., Dai, X., Wang, J., Qi, X., Yuan, Y., Yue, X.: Unposed Sparse Views Room Layout Reconstruction in the Age of Pretrain Model. In: International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2009)

    Lee, D.C., Hebert, M., Kanade, T.: Geometric Reasoning for Single Image Struc- ture Recovery. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Quarterly of applied mathematics2(2), 164–168 (1944)

    Levenberg, K.: A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Quarterly of applied mathematics2(2), 164–168 (1944)

    1944

  13. [21]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    Li, Y., Boyadzhiev, I., Liu, Z., Shapiro, L., Colburn, A.: BADGR: Bundle Adjust- ment Diffusion Conditioned by GRadients for Wide-Baseline Floor Plan Recon- struction. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Lindenberger, P., Sarlin, P.E., Larsson, V., Pollefeys, M.: Pixel-Perfect Structure- from-MotionwithFeaturemetricRefinement.In:InternationalConferenceonCom- puter Vision (ICCV) (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mathematical programming45(1), 503–528 (1989)

    Liu, D.C., Nocedal, J.: On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale opti- mization. Mathematical programming45(1), 503–528 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    In: Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2025)

    Mao, Y., Zhong, J., Fang, C., Zheng, J., Tang, R., Zhu, H., Tan, P., Zhou, Z.: SpatialLM: Training Large Language Models for Structured Indoor Modeling. In: Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Journal of the society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11(2), 431–441 (1963)

    Marquardt, D.W.: An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parame- ters. Journal of the society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11(2), 431–441 (1963)

    1963

  18. [26]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2020)

    Nie, Y., Han, X., Guo, S., Zheng, Y., Chang, J., Zhang, J.J.: To- tal3DUnderstanding: Joint Layout, Object Pose and Mesh Reconstruction for In- door Scenes from a Single Image. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H.V., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., Howes, R., Huang, P.Y., Xu, H., Sharma, V., Li, S.W., Galuba, W., Rabbat, M., Assran, M., Ballas, N., Syn- naeve, G., Misra, I., Jegou, H., Mairal...

    2025

  20. [28]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Pautrat, R., Barath, D., Larsson, V., Oswald, M.R., Pollefeys, M.: DeepLSD: Line Segment Detection and Refinement with Deep Image Gradients. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    Pintore, G., Agus, M., Gobbetti, E.: AtlantaNet: Inferring the 3D Indoor Layout from a Single 360°Image beyond the Manhattan World Assumption. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)40(6), 1–12 (2021)

    Pintore, G., Almansa, E., Agus, M., Gobbetti, E.: Deep3DLayout: 3D Reconstruc- tion of an Indoor Layout from a Spherical Panoramic Image. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)40(6), 1–12 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Computational visual media4, 367– 383 (2018)

    Pintore, G., Ganovelli, F., Pintus, R., Scopigno, R., Gobbetti, E.: 3d floor plan recovery from overlapping spherical images. Computational visual media4, 367– 383 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    Sarlin, P.E., Unagar, A., Larsson, M., Germain, H., Toft, C., Larsson, V., Pollefeys, M., Lepetit, V., Hammarstrand, L., Kahl, F., et al.: Back to the Feature: Learning Robust Camera Localization from Pixels to Pose. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2004) 18 Hanning et al

    Schindler, G., Dellaert, F.: Atlanta world: An expectation maximization framework for simultaneous low-level edge grouping and camera calibration in complex man- made environments. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2004) 18 Hanning et al

    2004

  26. [34]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    Schönberger, J.L., Frahm, J.M.: Structure-from-Motion Revisited. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2016)

    Schönberger, J.L., Zheng, E., Pollefeys, M., Frahm, J.M.: Pixelwise View Selection for Unstructured Multi-View Stereo. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2012)

    Schwing, A.G., Hazan, T., Pollefeys, M., Urtasun, R.: Efficient Structured Pre- diction for 3D Indoor Scene Understanding. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    Stekovic, S., Hampali, S., Rad, M., Sarkar, S.D., Fraundorfer, F., Lepetit, V.: Gen- eral 3D Room Layout from a Single View by Render-and-Compare. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021)

    Stekovic, S., Rad, M., Fraundorfer, F., Lepetit, V.: MonteFloor: Extending MCTS for Reconstructing Accurate Large-Scale Floor Plans. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Su, J.W., Peng, C.H., Wonka, P., Chu, H.K.: GPR-Net: Multi-view Layout Estima- tion via a Geometry-aware Panorama Registration Network. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    In: Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    Sun, C., Hsiao, C.W., Sun, M., Chen, H.T.: HorizonNet: Learning Room Layout with 1D Representation and Pano Stretch Data Augmentation. In: Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2009)

    Tardif, J.P.: Non-Iterative Approach for Fast and Accurate Vanishing Point De- tection. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Cartographic Journal30(1), 46–51 (1993)

    Visvalingam, M., Whyatt, J.: Line generalisation by repeated elimination of points. Cartographic Journal30(1), 46–51 (1993)

    1993

  35. [43]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    Wang, F.E., Yeh, Y.H., Sun, M., Chiu, W.C., Tsai, Y.H.: LED²-Net: Monocular 360°Layout Estimation via Differentiable Depth Rendering. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2022)

    Wang, H., Hutchcroft, W., Li, Y., Wan, Z., Boyadzhiev, I., Tian, Y., Kang, S.B.: PSMNet: Position-aware Stereo Merging Network for Room Layout Estimation. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    In: Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2025)

    Wang, R., Xu, S., Dong, Y., Deng, Y., Xiang, J., Lv, Z., Sun, G., Tong, X., Yang, J.: MoGe-2: Accurate Monocular Geometry with Metric Scale and Sharp Details. In: Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

    Wang, S., Leroy, V., Cabon, Y., Chidlovskii, B., Revaud, J.: DUSt3R: Geometric 3D Vision Made Easy. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    Wang, Y., Zhou, J., Zhu, H., Chang, W., Zhou, Y., Li, Z., Chen, J., Pang, J., Shen, C., He, T.:π3: Permutation-Equivariant Visual Geometry Learning. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2018)

    Wu, Y., He, K.: Group Normalization. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2023)

    Yeshwanth, C., Liu, Y.C., Nießner, M., Dai, A.: ScanNet++: A High-Fidelity Dataset of 3D Indoor Scenes. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    In: Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Yue, Y., Kontogianni, T., Schindler, K., Engelmann, F.: Connecting the Dots: Floorplan Reconstruction Using Two-Level Queries. In: Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021) PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation 19

    Zhang, C., Cui, Z., Zhang, Y., Zeng, B., Pollefeys, M., Liu, S.: Holistic 3D Scene Understanding from a Single Image with Implicit Representation. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2021) PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation 19

    2021

  44. [52]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    Zheng, J., Zhang, J., Li, J., Tang, R., Gao, S., Zhou, Z.: Structured3D: A Large Photo-realistic Dataset for Structured 3D Modeling. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Zou, C., Colburn, A., Shan, Q., Hoiem, D.: LayoutNet: Reconstructing the 3D Room Layout from a Single RGB Image. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) (2018) PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation 1 PolyLayout: Multi-room Manhattan Layout Estimation ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.