Organizations: Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Visual Media and Multidimensional Intelligence, College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, China, Shenzhen · University of Guelph, Canada, Guelph
As-built BIM reconstruction from point clouds demands semantic, volumetric, parametric, and editable building components, beyond 2D layouts or planar abstractions. Yet existing scan-to-BIM pipelines often rely on handcrafted rules, heuristic optimization, or manual correction, while learning-based methods fall short of recovering wall thickness, opening geometry, and component-level BIM structure. We introduce CRAB, a BIM-ready cuboid reconstruction framework that encodes walls, doors, windows, beams, and columns as compact architectural cuboids with IFC-compatible semantics and parameters. CRAB bridges point clouds and editable BIM by combining ProposalNet, which predicts coarse component cuboids, with AssemblyNet, a relation-aware Flow Matching model that refines geometry, predicts structural relationships, and enables automatic structural correction and human-guided editing. To address limited cuboid-level supervision, we extend Structured3D with component-wise cuboid annotations and construct cuboid-based procedural scenes. Experiments show CRAB surpasses floor plan and plane-based alternatives in component completeness, geometric accuracy, and generalization. For interior wall thickness estimation, CRAB achieves a mean error of 2.80 cm, with 79.50% of matched walls within 3 cm. The project page is available at https://vcc.tech/research/2026/CRAB.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. CRAB converts cluttered and incomplete indoor scans into compact, BIM-ready cuboid assemblies. By representing walls, doors, windows, beams, and columns as semantic cuboids with explicit geometric parameters and structural relations, CRAB supports accurate reconstruction, local editability, and downstream BIM conversion. The zoomed regions highlight challenging structures, including dense room partitions, non-uniform wall thicknesses, corner openings, and complex interior cores, while demonstrating precise wall-thickness recovery, consistent door-wall junctions, and robust reconstruction.
Dataset
Source
Scale
2D Floor Plan
3D Plane
Volumetric Comp.
ISPRS Benchmark ( 2017 )
Real-world
6
×
×
✓
Structured3D ( 2020 )
Synthetic
3,500
✓
✓
×
SceneCAD ( 2020 )
Real-world
1,151
✓
×
×
ProcTHOR ( 2022 )
Synthetic
12,000
✓
×
×
HSSD ( 2024 )
Synthetic
211
✓
×
×
ASE ( 2024 )
Synthetic
100,000
✓
✓
×
Table 1. Structural supervision in indoor building datasets. We compare whether each dataset provides 2D floor plan, structured 3D plane, and volumetric component-level annotations for BIM-oriented reconstruction.
Figure 2. Representative samples from CrabSet , combining S3D-derived residential and procedurally synthesized scenes for cuboid-level supervision. The synthesized subsets vary boundaries, scales, and corridor-centered layouts, covering non-uniform wall thicknesses, non-Manhattan contours, service shafts, and diverse circulation patterns.
Figure 3. Overview of CRAB . Given a raw indoor point cloud, ProposalNet encodes the scan and autoregressively predicts an initial set of semantic cuboids for walls, doors, and windows. AssemblyNet represents each proposal with centerline-based cuboid tokens augmented by semantic, relation, and edit-control flags, and refines them through intra-cuboid, inter-cuboid, and cuboid–point attention. A velocity head performs relation-aware flow-matching refinement of cuboid geometry, while a relation head infers structural dependencies such as wall adjacency and door/window affiliation. The refined cuboids and relations are finally instantiated as editable BIM-ready components, converting unstructured scans into component-level architectural models.
Method
Rep.
Exterior Wall
Interior Wall
Door
Window
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
CL-Offset ( ↓ )
T-MAE ( ↓ )
T-Acc@3 ( ↑ )
T-Acc@5 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
H-MAE ( ↓ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
H-MAE ( ↓ )
Cloud2BIM ( 2025 )
Volumetric
4.41%
62.76%
–
–
–
–
15.12%
–
4.52%
–
RoomFormer ( 2023 )
Floor Plan
84.48%
85.78%
5.34
6.19
27.79%
48.54%
77.05%
74.94
64.82%
120.84
CAGE ( 2025a )
Floor Plan
91.14%
89.74%
3.68
5.31
33.75%
58.11%
–
–
–
–
SceneScript ∗
Plane
44.40%
52.59%
6.02
9.24
10.73%
16.26%
47.83%
22.64
38.71%
22.01
SpatialLM ( 2025 )
Plane
92.40%
91.48%
3.10
3.89
24.98%
77.74%
89.03%
77.36
77.90%
122.86
Table 2. Quantitative comparison of representation choices on Structured3D. CRAB improves both component recovery and BIM-critical volumetric attributes, especially wall thickness and opening height, over floor plan and plane-based alternatives. Best and second-best results are highlighted in green and blue.
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison with a plane-based representation. Zoomed views compare the same local structures in GT, CRAB , and SpatialLM. CRAB ’s volumetric cuboids better preserve wall thickness, component extent, and opening-wall consistency than the plane-based representation.
Method
Rep.
2D Layout
3D Plane
Room
Corner
Angle
IoU 2D @0.25
IoU 2D @0.5
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Avg.
Wall
Door
Window
Avg.
Wall
Door
Window
RoomFormer ( 2023 )
Floor Plan
98.7
96.7
97.3
89.2
85.3
87.2
83.0
79.6
81.3
83.4
86.0
85.1
78.9
81.4
84.6
83.1
76.6
CAGE ( 2025a )
Floor Plan
99.6
98.7
99.1
95.0
88.6
91.7
92.5
86.4
89.3
–
89.3
–
–
–
86.4
–
–
SceneScript
Plane
81.3
45.3
58.2
71.1
29.8
42.0
68.4
28.6
40.4
90.4
92.9
92.8
85.5
89.2
91.9
92.5
83.3
SpatialLM ( 2025 )
Plane
99.3
97.2
98.2
94.5
89.5
92.0
93.7
88.7
91.1
92.2
93.5
94.1
88.9
91.1
92.4
93.4
87.5
Table 3. Quantitative comparison of 2D layout and 3D plane quality on Structured3D. The results show that CRAB’s gains in volumetric reconstruction do not come at the expense of layout or plane quality. Best and second-best results are highlighted in green and blue.
Figure 5. AssemblyNet refinement under simulated wall editing errors. The three rows show the ground truth, the perturbed input, and the refined result, respectively. Starting from the noisy wall highlighted in yellow, plane-based refinement can drift toward nearby structures, while cuboid-based refinement better preserves and recovers the target volumetric component.
Method
Exterior Wall
Interior Wall
Door
Window
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
T-Acc@3 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
AssemblyNet (Plane)
87.94%
87.31%
20.45%
88.02%
76.44%
AssemblyNet (Cuboid)
94.42%
92.73%
81.27%
92.20%
89.76%
Table 4. Comparison of full-scene refinement with plane-based and cuboid-based AssemblyNet, using planes from SpatialLM and cuboids from ProposalNet, respectively. Cuboid-based AssemblyNet improves the initial reconstruction results, whereas plane-based AssemblyNet degrades them.
Figure 6. BIM conversion from cuboids and relations. The same cuboid-relation graph supports different junction assignments: Corner-Joint BIM uses explicit corner joints, Cross-Joint BIM uses explicit cross joints, and Wall-Integrated BIM merges junction regions into connected wall elements.
Method
Exterior Wall
Interior Wall
Door
Window
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
T-Acc@3 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Match-F1 ( ↑ )
Oriented Box
92.59%
92.06%
71.74%
92.20%
88.94%
Centerline Cuboid (Ours)
93.78%
92.57%
79.50%
91.14%
88.97%
Table 5. Ablation of cuboid parameterization. Oriented boxes perform well on compact components such as doors and windows, but are less suitable for long and thin walls, where longitudinal extent and thickness play strongly asymmetric geometric roles. Our centerline-based parameterization explicitly separates these two factors, improving wall geometry and thickness reconstruction and making it more suitable for BIM-oriented reconstruction.
Figure 7. Qualitative comparison on Structured3D. Each column shows one scene, with rows showing the input point cloud, floor plan baselines, plane baselines, our cuboid reconstruction, and the ground truth. Compared with RoomFormer, CAGE, SceneScript, and SpatialLM, CRAB recovers more coherent wall structures and more accurate door and window geometry in ambiguous, non-Manhattan, and incomplete regions.
Figure 8. Qualitative comparison on real-world scanned scenes. Each row shows one scene: input point cloud (left), SpatialLM (middle), and ours (right). CRAB better preserves wall continuity and opening geometry under practical noise and clutter.
Automatic generation of Building Information Models (BIM) from building scans is a key challenge in architecture and construction. We present a modular pipeline for generating IFC-compliant BIM from 3D point clouds. The hybrid approach combines learning-based semantic segmentation with topology-aware geometric reconstruction to model structural elements accurately. We propose vIoU, adapting voxel-based overlap evaluation to Scan-to-BIM by enabling holistic, instance-matching-free comparison of reconstructed and ground-truth models. We release the German Hospital dataset (DeKH), including high-resolution point clouds, ground truth BIMs, and semantic annotations. Experiments on DeKH and CV4AEC datasets show significant improvements over a RANSAC-based baseline, demonstrating robustness and scalability.
Mahdi Chamseddine, Fabian Kaufmann, Marius Schellen +3
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany · RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Kaiserslautern, Germany
We introduce BuildAnyPoint, a novel generative framework for structured 3D building reconstruction from point clouds with diverse distributions, such as those captured by airborne LiDAR and Structure-from-Motion. To recover artist-created building abstraction in this highly underconstrained setting, we capitalize on the role of explicit 3D generative priors in autoregressive mesh generation. Specifically, we design a Loosely Cascaded Diffusion Transformer (Loca-DiT) that initially recovers the underlying distribution from noisy or sparse points, followed by autoregressively encapsulating them into compact meshes. We first formulate distribution recovery as a conditional generation task by training latent diffusion models conditioned on input point clouds, and then tailor a decoder-only transformer for conditional autoregressive mesh generation based on the recovered point clouds. Our method delivers substantial qualitative and quantitative improvements over prior building abstraction methods. Furthermore, the effectiveness of our approach is evidenced by the strong performance of its recovered point clouds on building point cloud completion benchmarks, which exhibit improved surface accuracy and distribution uniformity.
Construction robots must label building elements they can only partly see. We show that when occlusion at test time removes whole regions of a scene, rather than parts of an object as in training, point-cloud segmentation networks do not simply miss the hidden elements: they relabel them, and the errors collapse onto a single sink class. With fixed synthetic layouts the column absorbs up to 70% of all test points; with randomized layouts the sink moves to the stair, predicted at 4.5-5.4x its true share across three training seeds. Baseline mIoU falls to 0.15-0.27 (fixed) and 0.36-0.72 (randomized), and up to 269 whole objects vanish in a single test set. Appending 14 hand-computed geometric features per point (GPE) restores mIoU to 0.54-0.92 and removes 64-100% of whole-object losses in every run, for PointNet++ and a PTv3-style transformer in both layout regimes; on real S3DIS scans it removes every whole-wall loss (10 to 0). In an as-built column check computed from the predictions, GPE raises the share of correctly checked views from 17-58% to 71-92%. Feature permutation on fixed, randomized and real scenes explains the pattern: each class relies on whichever cue is stable in its training data, position for height-banded slabs and beams, intrinsic shape for walls and stairs once their position varies. Occlusion augmentation is a strong alternative on mIoU, but in every setting it loses more whole objects than GPE (e.g., 25-35 vs. 0).