This research developed a neural network-based model to extract various information from 2D floor plans. We detect lighting symbols, identify the appropriate type of light, and extract the associated texts with lights. The study aims to enable efficient floor designing and determining the number and type of lights needed per floor, i.e., allow efficient design and estimate the power requirement of the floor plan. The model was developed using Mask RCNN as the base. The images were annotated and converted into a Coco data format for training the model. The model achieved bbox_mAP and segm_mAP values of 0.7596 and 0.7111, respectively. It also performed well at different IoU thresholds, i.e., with bbox_mAP 50 and segm_mAP 75 values of 0.9850 and 0.9219, respectively. The developed model will help various industries, such as architecture and construction, to improve design time and create efficient workflows by automatically detecting Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) objects from floor plans, and it is the first step towards building tools that will help energy-efficient building design.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: An architectural floor plan section, specifically a residential unit’s kitchen and bathroom areas [ 6 ]
Fig. 2: Various Wall Notations [ 16 ]
Fig. 3: Neural Network Model Development Methodology
Fig. 4: Data Collection and Preprocessing
Fig. 5: Image Annotation
Fig. 6: Original Unsliced Image
Fig. 7: Sliced Component of the Original Image
Fig. 8: COCO Data Format
Model
Advantages
Disadvantages
Mask R-CNN [ 3 ] , [ 4 ]
Object detection and instance segmentation in a single model, with high accuracy, end-to-end training, open-source implementation
Computationally expensive, slower inference speed compared to other models
Faster R-CNN [ 33 ]
Good accuracy, faster inference speed compared to Mask R-CNN
Requires twostage detection, may miss small objects
YOLO [ 33 ]
Fast inference speed, real-time object detection
Lower accuracy compared to other models, may miss small objects
SSD [ 34 ]
Fast inference speed, real-time object detection, good accuracy for small objects
Lower accuracy compared to other models for larger objects
TABLE I: Object Detection Model Comparison
Fig. 9: Learning Rate Graph
Fig. 10: Training Accuracy and Loss Graphs
Epoch
Learning Rate
Training Time
Memory
Loss_rpn_cls
Loss_rpn_bbox
Loss_cls
Accuracy
Loss_bbox
Loss_mask
Loss
1
2.500e-03
0:40:42
2543
0.1327
0.0245
0.3299
86.1719
0.2994
0.5616
1.3480
10
2.500e-04
0:10:28
2904
0.0019
0.0125
0.0716
97.0508
0.1685
0.1259
0.3804
20
2.500e-05
0:00:02
2904
0.0014
0.0105
0.0570
97.5586
0.1559
0.1161
0.3409
TABLE II: Training Metrics
Fig. 11: Segmentation Evaluation Results
Fig. 12: Evaluation Results for Epoch 20
Fig. 13: Detected Lighting Symbols in Test Image
Fig. 14: Extraction of Lighting Symbols and Associated Text
Many public buildings provide floorplans with a "you are here" indicator to help visitors orient themselves. Floorplan localization seeks to computationally replicate this capability by determining where visual observations were captured within a floorplan. However, existing methods typically assume controlled small-scale environments and precise vectorized floorplans, limiting their ability to operate in large-scale buildings and rasterized floorplans. In this work, we present an approach for performing floorplan localization in the wild by grounding the task in a reconstructed 3D representation of the scene. Given an unconstrained image collection, our method reconstructs a gravity-aligned 3D scene and projects it into a 2D density map that serves as a floorplan proxy. Floorplan localization is then formulated as aligning this proxy with the input floorplan via a 2D similarity transform. To bridge the appearance gap between density maps and architectural floorplans, we adapt a 2D foundation model to learn cross-modal correspondences, introducing a fine-tuning scheme that encourages semantically aligned matches while preserving structural consistency. Extensive experiments demonstrate substantial improvements over prior methods, including in extremely sparse settings with as little as a single input image. Our code and data will be publicly available.
Junhyeong Cho, Ruojin Cai, Hadar Averbuch-Elor
Cornell University · Kempner Institute, Harvard University
Information Extraction (IE) from Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) drawings remains hindered by manual inefficiency, while Layout Detection, a vital 'middleware' organizing graphical and textual hierarchies, is underexplored. General document layout models, optimized for text-centric content, lack validation on engineering drawings. This study constructs a custom AEC-specific layouts dataset and benchmarks five deep learning architectures. RF-DETR achieves state-of-the-art performance with an mAP50 of 0.949, while the Vision-Language Model Qwen3-VL attains a leading F1-score of 0.911. Conversely, models pre-trained on general document datasets suffer from "domain interference", causing performance degradation. This establishes a robust technical foundation for automated IE in AEC.
Tianyang Huang, Alessio Lombardi, Ahmed Elnagar +7
Buro Happold Ltd., London, United Kingdom · Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
A network trained to recover the walls, openings, and rooms of a rasterized floorplan can produce its output in two ways: by emitting the geometry as an autoregressive coordinate sequence, or by detecting it on dense junction and centerline heatmaps and assembling a graph. We compare the two readouts on the same trained network. On real scans (CubiCasa5K) detection is better on every wall measure (+2.7 wall F1 at tolerance 0.05, +5.1 at 0.015; paired bootstrap intervals exclude zero), and reading an opening heatmap the decoder never used raises opening F1 by 2.6x without retraining. Within real scans the readout's advantage grows with plan size and reverses on small plans; on clean vector renders sequence decoding is better by 5 to 8 points where its training covered the render style, while under full domain shift the readout, given calibrated thresholds, stays ahead; neither ink density nor plan size explains the reversal. With matched data and recipe, a room-centric system with a reconciliation step and a wall-first sequence model reach comparable wall quality, so the output representation matters less than is usually assumed. A prior from the other family helps at the output but not at the input: deterministic fusion of the two outputs raises wall F1 by 7 points, whereas conditioning one model on the other's output gives no gain in three forms, including two ground-truth-content controls. We also provide an edit-cost metric that scores a draft by the human work needed to correct it, corrected CubiCasa5K annotations, and ResPlan-FP, a CC BY 4.0 benchmark of 16,998 plans with frozen splits and three baseline tracks. Code, the benchmark, and the corrected annotations are available at https://github.com/Cyprinus12138/fpvec-lab