无需训练,用智能体直接从结构图纸中识别构件并生成可编辑模型。
Training-Free Agentic Computer Vision for Structural Component Detection in 2D Structural Framing Plans

- 通过几何提取与制图规则解析,无须训练即可识别构件。
- 关键构件识别准确率超90%,尺度估计误差小于0.1%。
- 适合建筑信息模型自动化流程,不依赖标注数据。
将结构平面图转换为可编辑的有限元模型草稿既耗时又易出错。现有构件识别系统多依赖任务特定的神经检测器,而结构工程中的语言模型通常处理文本或模型数据,而非图纸。据作者所知,本工作首次在不进行任务特定检测器训练或微调的情况下,将智能体式视觉-语言层应用于从框架图PDF中进行构件检测与模型生成。确定性阶段提取几何基元,通过尺寸比例一致性估计尺度,利用显式制图语法识别五类实体,并构建可编辑布局。智能体阶段通过确定性候选、操作特异性准入测试、变更级别审查和故障闭锁事务约束输入修正。评估使用作者生成的100张图纸基准,分为开发集(用于规则修订)与独立保留集(规则冻结后仅评估一次)。所有指标均为完整框架在保留集上的端到端结果。各图尺度估计误差均低于0.1%。柱、梁、墙、支撑、开口的召回率与精确率分别为:0.922/0.997、0.886/0.990、1.000/1.000、1.000/1.000、1.000/0.964。控制实验对三张开发图重复三次腐蚀操作,校准通过全部九次试验,构件修复在九次中有五次满足严格终态标准。因两组基准共享生成器,评估未涵盖独立绘制图纸、位图输入、分析连接性或求解器验证。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Converting structural framing plans into editable finite-element model drafts is labor-intensive and susceptible to transcription errors. Existing building-component recognition systems generally depend on task-specific neural detectors, whereas language-model agents in structural engineering typically operate on text or model data rather than on drawings. To the authors' knowledge, this work is the first to apply an agentic vision-language layer to structural-component detection and model drafting from framing-plan PDFs without task-specific detector training or fine-tuning. A deterministic stage extracts geometric primitives, estimates scale by dimension-ratio consensus, recognizes five entity classes using an explicit drafting grammar, and assembles an editable layout. The agentic stage constrains typed corrections through deterministic candidates, operation-specific admission tests, change-level review, and fail-closed transactions. Evaluation used an author-generated benchmark of 100 plans, divided equally between a development half used for all rule revisions and a seed-disjoint held-out half generated after the rules were frozen and evaluated once. All scores are end-to-end results for the complete framework on the held-out half. Scale estimates were within 0.1% of the generator reference for every drawing. Recall and precision were 0.922/0.997 for columns, 0.886/0.990 for beams, 1.000/1.000 for walls, 1.000/1.000 for braces, and 1.000/0.964 for openings. A controlled study repeated two corruptions three times on three development drawings. Calibration passed all nine trials, whereas member repair satisfied every strict end-state criterion in five of nine trials. Because both benchmark halves share a generator, the evaluation does not address independently drafted plans, raster input, analytical connectivity, or solver validation.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。