cs.CLOct 15, 2026
SaveRenoLayout: Unified Floorplan Renovation and Furniture Layout for Constraint-Aware Residential Design
Organizations: Beike
Abstract
Residential design aims to transform existing homes into functional living spaces while satisfying diverse design preferences and physical constraints. However, existing floorplan generation methods typically assume empty building boundaries as input, whereas renovation requires reasoning over existing floorplans. Furthermore, floorplan renovation and furniture layout are commonly addressed as separate tasks, overlooking their inherent spatial dependency. Consequently, practical residential design must preserve immutable structural components while transforming editable spatial elements. It must also optimize furniture placement under design objectives and physical constraints. To address these challenges, we formulate residential design as a design-point-guided conditional generation task and propose RenoLayout, a framework that translates a pre-design residential state together with a design-point set into an executable Geometry-as-Code program. To enable controllable supervision, we construct a Design Map comprising 123 fine-grained design points covering structural renovation and furniture layout. We further introduce Difference-Grounded Design-Point Annotation to derive design-point sets automatically from before--after design pairs with VLM-based consistency verification. RenoLayout is trained using a three-stage CPT--SFT--RL pipeline, progressively improving spatial reasoning, instruction following, and constraint compliance. We also introduce the RenoLayout Benchmark, a set of 200 real-world before--after renovation cases with complete furniture layouts. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first benchmark for unified residential design. These cases include design-critical structural and building-service constraints.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of existing task-specific paradigms with RenoLayout. Existing methods treat floorplan generation separately from furniture layout, whereas RenoLayout unifies constraint-aware renovation with full-home furnishing.
| Task setting Representative works | Pre-design state | Post-design solution | Full-home furnishing | Load-bearing walls | Doors & windows | Pipes & drainage |
| Floorplan generation House-GAN ( Nauata et al. 2020 ) ; Yin et al. ( Yin et al. 2025 ) ; HouseMind ( Qin, Weber, and Lu 2026 ) | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Scene layout generation LayoutGPT ( Feng et al. 2023 ) ; OptiScene ( Yang et al. 2025b ) ; HoGLayout ( Jiang et al. 2026 ) ; LaviGen ( Feng et al. 2026 ) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Joint floorplan-layout generation HouseDiffusion ( Shabani, Hosseini, and Furukawa 2023 ) ; Nestwork ( Miao, Cao, and Zhuang 2026 ) | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Unified residential design RenoLayout (Ours) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Table 1: Comparison of data annotations in residential design. Unlike existing settings, RenoLayout provides paired pre-design states with post-design solutions, complemented by full-home furnishing as well as design-critical annotations for structures and building services.
Figure 2: Frequency of furniture-layout (top) and structural-renovation (bottom) design points in the training (blue) and test (red) splits. Frequency is the occurrence count normalized by the total number of samples per split; design points are ordered by descending training-set frequency.
Figure 3: Overview of RenoLayout. Left: paired designs are converted into difference-grounded design-point sets and verified through multi-VLM consistency auditing. Middle: the pre-design state is serialized as Geometry-as-Code and combined with design-point prompts, enabling Qwen3 to first produce a graph-based spatial plan and then generate executable structural-renovation and furniture-layout actions through the CPT–SFT–RL training pipeline.
| Category | Total | Avg./case | Std. | Min | Max |
| Renovation | 875 | 4.38 | 2.33 | 1 | 13 |
| Layout | 2,177 | 10.88 | 3.40 | 0 | 23 |
| Overall | 3,052 | 15.26 | 4.71 | 2 | 31 |
Table 2: Per-case statistics and total counts of structural-renovation and furniture-layout design-point annotations across the 200-case RenoLayout Benchmark.
| Settings | Overall Metrics | VLM-HS by Evaluator | ||||||
| CPT | Box | CoT | Recall@1 | Pass@1 | Seed | GLM | GPT | Gemini |
| ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 80.92% | 27.00% | 5.12 | 4.97 | 5.60 | 5.07 |
| ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 81.13% | 38.50% | 5.86 | 5.85 | 6.39 | 5.77 |
| ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 84.47% | 42.00% | 5.98 | 5.86 | 6.46 | 5.78 |
| ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | 88.65% | 31.50% | 6.32 | 6.01 | 6.69 | 6.19 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 86.37% | 45.00% | 6.61 | 6.60 | 7.10 | 6.40 |
Table 3: Feature ablation of CPT, bounding-box encoding (Box), and graph-planning CoT. All metrics except VLM-HS (0–10) are percentages.
Figure 4: Qualitative effects of bounding boxes on local placement and CoT on spatial planning.
| Method | Overall Metrics | VLM-HS by Evaluator | ||||
| Recall@1 | Pass@1 | Seed | GLM | GPT | Gemini | |
| RenoLayout-SFT | 88.67% | 49.00% | 6.82 | 6.75 | 7.22 | 6.45 |
| + DPO | 89.37% | 55.50% | 6.92 | 6.90 | 7.36 | 6.64 |
| + GDPO | 90.89% | 53.00% | 6.87 | 6.81 | 7.20 | 6.77 |
| + DPO + GDPO | 91.63 % | 61.00% | 7.26 | 7.32 | 7.72 | 7.22 |
| + GDPO + DPO | 90.42% | 61.50 % | 7.17 | 7.23 | 7.70 | 7.16 |
Table 4: RL post-training ablation of DPO and GDPO. All metrics except VLM-HS (0–10) are percentages.
| Method | Designer 1 | Designer 2 | Designer 3 | Mean | Std. |
| RenoLayout | 5.50 | 5.59 | 5.19 | 5.43 | 0.17 |
| Ground Truth (GT) | 7.06 | 7.35 | 6.58 | 7.00 | 0.32 |
Table 5: Professional Approval Score (PAS; 0–10).
Figure 5: Visual comparison with LayoutGPT. Red arrows indicate furniture accessibility issues, and blue arrows indicate furniture misalignment with walls. RenoLayout produces more accessible and better-aligned room layouts in these examples.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Structural-Renovation Design Points (52) | |||||
| No. | Design Point | No. | Design Point | No. | Design Point |
| 1 | Bedroom Storage | 19 | Remove Entryway | 36 | 4BR to 3BR |
| 2 | Door/Window Adjustment | 20 | 2BR to 3BR | 37 | Master Suite |
| 3 | Wet-Dry Separation (2-Zone) | 21 | Add Study in Living Room | 38 | Wet-Dry Separation (3-Zone) |
| 4 | Convert to Utility Area | 22 | Enlarge Bedroom | 39 | Kitchen-Dining Integration |
| 5 | Entryway Storage | 23 | 3BR to 2BR | 40 | Corridor Storage |
Table 7: Complete Design Map containing 52 structural-renovation and 71 furniture-layout design points. Entries are arranged in three parallel numbered blocks for compact presentation.
| Dimension | Metric | Range | Description and Key Indicators |
| Design-point fulfillment | Recall@1 | 0–100% | Mean case-level proportion of requested design points fulfilled in the first generated outputs, averaged across all 200 cases by a rule-based evaluator. |
| Constraint compliance | Pass@1 | 0–100% | Percentage of one-sample generated results that pass all 22 checks across geometric validity, structural compliance, functional integrity, and collision-free placement. |
| Constraint compliance | Geometric Validity ( ) | 0–100% | Percentage of generated designs with well-formed polygons, valid references, and complete required fields. |
| Constraint compliance | Structural Compliance ( ) | 0–100% | Percentage of generated designs that preserve load-bearing walls, exterior envelopes, and shafts while maintaining room connectivity through valid doors. |
| Constraint compliance | Functional Integrity ( ) | 0–100% | Percentage of generated designs that retain fixed infrastructure and essential fixtures without damage or omission. |
| Constraint compliance | Collision-Free Placement ( ) | 0–100% | Percentage of generated designs without furniture overlap or forbidden-zone violations. |
Table 8: Overview of the unified evaluation framework.
| Submetric | Checks | Violation Flags and Annotations |
| Geometric Validity ( ) | 5 | polygon_invalid : malformed polygon geometry; polygon_self_intersect : polygon edges intersect one another; invalid_reference : an entity references a nonexistent or invalid object; missing_required_field : a mandatory geometry or semantic field is absent; wall_endpoint_in_opening : a wall endpoint lies inside a door or window opening |
| Structural Compliance ( ) | 11 | load_bearing_wall_removed : an existing load-bearing wall is deleted; load_bearing_wall_moved : a load-bearing wall is displaced; load_bearing_wall_thinned : load-bearing wall thickness is reduced; load_bearing_wall_new_opening : a new opening is cut into a load-bearing wall; load_bearing_wall_opening_enlarged : an existing load-bearing-wall opening is enlarged; exterior_wall_altered : the exterior envelope geometry is modified; facade_new_window : a new window is introduced on the facade; wall_crosses_shaft : a wall intersects a protected service shaft; opening_exceeds_wall : an opening extends beyond its supporting wall segment; no_entry_door : the dwelling has no valid entrance door; room_no_door : a room has no valid doorway |
| Functional Integrity ( ) | 4 | kitchen_flue_altered : the fixed kitchen exhaust flue is modified; gas_pipe_altered : the fixed gas-pipe location or geometry is modified; entry_door_altered : the fixed entrance door is modified; bathroom_missing_fixture : an essential bathroom fixture is absent |
| Collision-Free Placement ( ) | 2 | item_overlap : furniture or other placed items overlap; furniture_forbidden_position : furniture occupies a prohibited wall, opening, or clearance zone |
| Total | 22 | Pass@1 requires that none of the 22 violation flags be triggered. |
Table 9: Exact rule composition of the four constraint-compliance submetrics, with a brief annotation for each violation flag.
Figure 6: Representative failure cases involving irregular boundaries and severely constrained spaces.
| Prompt component | Instruction content |
| Role and task | You are a senior residential design reviewer. Evaluate the post-design plan dimension by dimension. Assess subjective design quality that geometry cannot fully determine in Dimensions 1–5. Assess physical compliance together with hard defects only in Dimension 6. |
| Design context and design points | When both images are available, they depict the same dwelling in two states. The first image shows the original plan, whereas the second presents the post-design plan under review. Score only the post-design plan; the original plan is provided solely to explain what changed and why. All scores reflect the absolute quality of the post-design solution, not improvement relative to the original plan. The listed design points are the required design objectives. Dimensions 1–4 evaluate absolute zoning, layout, circulation, and amenity quality. They must not mechanically reward or penalize compliance with a design point. However, consequences necessarily caused by correctly implementing a required design point must not be treated as defects. Dimension 5 alone evaluates whether design points were implemented. It also assesses whether their implementation is natural and coherent. |
| Objective physical-inspection facts | [Objective physical-inspection facts detected by the deterministic engine; the primary basis for Dimension 6.] {Insert the engine’s P0/P1 fact list here; if there are no hits, write: No P0/P1-level physical issues detected.} Cross-check the list against the post-design image. Clearly inconsistent entries may be treated as false detections and downweighted. Do not fabricate physical issues beyond the list. The fact list is used only for Dimension 6 and must not adjust Dimensions 1–5. |
Table 12: VLM-HS scoring prompt, Part I: role, design context, and physical-inspection input.
| Prompt component | Instruction content |
| Dimension 1: Functional Zoning | Evaluate whether active/quiet, public/private, and wet/dry zones are clearly layered with limited mutual interference. Check whether bedrooms form an independent cluster separated from living/dining/kitchen spaces. Assess whether the plan progresses from entry to public/social space and then reaches private sleeping space. Determine whether bathrooms serve either the sleeping area or the public area rather than remaining isolated centrally. Finally, assess whether living, dining, and kitchen areas form a coherent social zone. This dimension evaluates zoning logic, not missing furniture or reachability. |
| Dimension 2: Spatial Layout | Evaluate whether proportions are comfortable and balanced. Determine whether the circulation area is economical and the primary/secondary hierarchy is appropriate. Check whether major rooms are roughly within a 1:1–1:2 aspect-ratio range. Assess whether corridors are compact rather than long, dark, or wasteful. Determine whether the master bedroom is larger than secondary bedrooms. The living room should be the largest or second-largest public space. Finally, check whether obvious fragmentary space exists. This dimension evaluates proportion and layout rather than exact floor area. |
| Dimension 3: Circulation Quality | Assuming rooms are reachable with no must-pass-through-bedroom defect, evaluate the smoothness and quality of daily circulation. Check whether the entry provides a foyer or dust-buffer zone. Assess whether kitchen and dining areas are adjacent with a short housework path. Determine whether the nighttime bedroom-to-bathroom path is short, quiet, and minimally exposed to public activity. This dimension evaluates circulation quality, not objective reachability. |
Table 13: VLM-HS scoring prompt, Part II: definitions of Dimensions 1–3.
| Prompt component | Instruction content |
| Dimension 4: Amenity Configuration | Evaluate whether the plan provides hallmark configurations of quality living. Check for a master suite with a dedicated bathroom or dressing/storage area. Also assess whether the plan includes a distinct entry foyer with systematic storage. Where multiple bathrooms exist, evaluate owner/guest separation. Finally, assess whether an open, connected living/dining area supports social use. Evaluate only items visible in the image; skip unclear evidence rather than fabricating it. |
| Dimension 5: Design-Point Implementation | Evaluate the listed design points in terms of both fulfillment and implementation quality. Fulfillment asks whether each required design point is visibly realized without omission, distortion, or reversal. Implementation quality considers location, scale, and spatial relationships. These aspects should appear natural and coherent with the overall plan rather than forced or achieved at the expense of visible living quality. This dimension must be supported by a mandatory item-by-item design-point audit. |
| Dimension 6: Physical Compliance | Evaluate objective physical compliance and defects. Use the deterministic P0/P1 fact list as the primary basis, cross-checked against the post-design image. P0 defects are the primary ordering signal and must be strongly penalized; P1 defects provide only finer differentiation within a severity band. Do not invent issues beyond the fact list. |
| Scope boundary | The following objective items are evaluated only in Dimension 6: room reachability; furniture overlap, through-wall placement, or door blockage; missing essential furniture; natural daylight; must-pass-through-bedroom circulation; direct kitchen-to-toilet-bathroom connection; door or passage width; and load-bearing/exterior-wall modifications. Dimensions 1–5 evaluate only subjective design quality within their stated scope. Design-point implementation is evaluated primarily in Dimension 5, while correctly required design-point consequences must not be mechanically treated as defects in Dimensions 1–4. |
Table 14: VLM-HS scoring prompt, Part III: definitions of Dimensions 4–6 and scope boundaries.
| Prompt component | Instruction content |
| Deduction/bonus checklist | Functional Zoning Deductions: public functions interrupted by bedrooms or bathrooms; rooms arranged as a single-axis sequence without clustering; entry directly entering or facing the bedroom zone; a bedroom sandwiched between public spaces; or a centrally isolated bathroom. Bonuses: bedrooms grouped independently behind a corridor or foyer, and a clear entry public private progression. Circulation Quality Deductions: no foyer buffer; kitchen and dining separated by a detour; nighttime bedroom-to-bathroom circulation crossing public activity space; crossing or strongly interfering daily paths; or an obviously circuitous route from entry to major functions. Bonuses: an entry buffer, adjacent kitchen/dining spaces, and a short private nighttime path. Amenity Configuration Deductions: an ordinary master bedroom with neither dedicated bathroom nor dressing/storage area; no entry zone or shoe-storage location; scattered storage; multiple bathrooms without owner/guest separation; or a living/dining area fragmented by circulation. Bonuses: a master suite, foyer plus systematic storage, owner/guest-separated bathrooms, and an open connected living/dining area. Design-Point Implementation Audit every listed design point individually. A point is Implemented only when its required action produces the intended outcome. Partially implemented indicates that the direction is present but a key action, scale, or placement is missing. Not implemented indicates no visible evidence. Reversely implemented indicates an outcome contrary to the requirement. Score this dimension according to fulfillment as well as implementation quality. Consider the resulting placement together with its spatial relationship. Both should appear natural and coherent. |
| Scoring-band anchors | Spatial Layout —9–10: balanced major-room proportions, no elongated forms, no or only a very short dedicated corridor, appropriate room hierarchy, with no fragmentary space; 7–8: most rooms proportioned appropriately, moderate corridor share, with at most minor local narrowness; 6–7: one or two clear scale problems; 5–6: multiple scale problems, large fragmentary space, excessive corridor share, or reversed master/secondary hierarchy; 0–4: severely unbalanced layout. Physical Compliance —9–10: , ; 8–9: , – ; 7–8: , ; 5.5–7: ; 3–5.5: ; 0–3: . P1 issues may gradually lower the score within a band, but must not outweigh P0 defects. |
| Hidden design-defect checklist | Living/dining space traversed by circulation and turned into a passage; a severely imbalanced frontage-to-depth ratio creating a strip-like plan; excessive room subdivision causing cramped rooms or fragmentary blocks; a main public space smaller than a secondary room; a bathroom door facing the entry, dining table, or bed; or an open kitchen venting directly toward living/dining space without any partition. |
Table 15: VLM-HS scoring prompt, Part IV: checklists and scoring anchors.
| Prompt component | Instruction content |
| Scoring procedure | A. Dimensions 1–5: First inspect the relevant deduction/bonus checklist together with the hidden-defect checklist. Record only visible hits with their locations. Then assign a score based on the number and severity of hits rather than a vague overall impression: four or more deductions, or one very severe deduction, normally yields 5–6; three deductions yields about 6; two deductions yields 7–8; at most one minor deduction yields about 8; no deduction yields 8–9. Multiple visible bonuses with no deduction may yield 10. Scores of 6 or below must name the specific deduction and location; scores of 8 or above must be supported by no obvious deduction. For Dimension 5, audit every design-point ID separately. Each item must be labeled Implemented , Partially implemented , Not implemented , or Reversely implemented , with image-grounded evidence. Do not merge multiple IDs using statements such as “most” or “all.” A design point is implemented only when its key action and intended result are both visible; unclear evidence is labeled partially implemented. The dimension score reflects both fulfillment and implementation quality, but is not mechanically fixed by the proportion of item statuses. B. Dimension 6: Use the P0/P1 fact list as the primary basis. Cross-check obvious inconsistencies against the image, do not fabricate additional issues, and assign the score using the P0/P1 anchors. A true must substantially lower the score: normally implies at least 7, cannot exceed 7, and cannot exceed 5.5. |
| Output format | Output only one strict JSON object, with no draft reasoning or other text. The design_point_checks array is mandatory: every supplied design-point ID must occur exactly once; output an empty array if no design points are supplied. Reasons must be concise, image-grounded, and consistent with the item-level audit. Each reason states at most two deductions or bonuses with locations; vague boilerplate is prohibited. If a dimension cannot be judged from the rendering, use score and explain why; score 0 is reserved for an extremely poor but judgeable plan. Do not output an overall score. The JSON has the form: {"design_point_checks": [{"id": "L2-1", "status": "Implemented", "evidence": "..."}], "dimensions": [{"dimension": "Functional Zoning", "score": <0--10>, "reason": "..."}, {"dimension": "Spatial Layout", ...}, {"dimension": "Circulation Quality", ...}, {"dimension": "Amenity Configuration", ...}, {"dimension": "Design-Point Implementation", ...}, {"dimension": "Physical Compliance", ...}]} |
Table 16: VLM-HS scoring prompt, Part V: scoring procedure and output format.
More in this topic
Constrained Generative Modeling
Constrained generative modeling develops methods that produce samples satisfying structural, physical, semantic, or user-defined requirements.
See all 185 papers