Writing study: GLINT: Modeling Scene-Scale Transparency via Gaussian Radiance Transport

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Youngju Na, Jaeseong Yun, Soohyun Ryu, Hyunsu Kim, Sung-Eui Yoon, Suyong Yeon · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Architecture & representation (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

10 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.18 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

8 / 3

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 81.8%References / intervening material: ≈ 18.2%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.68 pp.	6.8%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.71 pp.	7.1%
3. Method	3	≈ 3.15 pp.	31.5%
4. Experimental Results	6	≈ 2.43 pp.	24.3%
5. Conclusion and Discussion	8	≈ 0.21 pp.	2.1%
6. Acknowledgements	9	≈ 0.13 pp.	1.3%
References	9	≈ 1.82 pp.	18.2%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 4
• Figure 3 · p. 5
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Figure 5 · p. 6
• Figure 6 · p. 6
• Figure 7 · p. 7
• Table 2 · p. 8
• Figure 8 · p. 8
• Table 3 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 9 physical pages; 9 detected figures and 1 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 8.88 page-equivalents, 9 figure labels and 1 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.19 pp.
A. 3D-FRONT-T Dataset	1	≈ 0.83 pp.
B. Overview of Baseline Methods	2	≈ 0.55 pp.
C. Additional Implementation Details	2	≈ 0.63 pp.
D. Qualitative Ablation Studies	3	≈ 0.43 pp.
E. Comparative Analysis with Baselines	3	≈ 1.68 pp.
F. Discussion on Foundation Models	5	≈ 0.45 pp.
G. Limitations and Future Work	5	≈ 0.62 pp.
H. Additional Qualitative Results	6	≈ 0.16 pp.
References	6	≈ 3.34 pp.

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Table 1 · p. 5
• Figure 5 · p. 6
• Figure 6 · p. 6
• Figure 7 · p. 7
• Figure 8 · p. 7
• Figure 9 · p. 8

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Names the mixed radiance contributions at glass as a representation problem rather than only a rendering-quality shortfall.

2. Argument sequence

   Defines decomposed components before transport and optimization, then evaluates geometry separately from photometric output.

3. Evidence and verification

   Table 1 groups normal, depth and mesh metrics; synthetic RGB/depth and mesh visualizations accompany the geometry claim.

Problem, claim and contribution

Names the mixed radiance contributions at glass as a representation problem rather than only a rendering-quality shortfall.

Abstract and Introduction, pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Defines decomposed components before transport and optimization, then evaluates geometry separately from photometric output.

Sections 3–4, pp. 3–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 distinguishes the interface, transmission and reflection branches with labeled rendered intermediates and separate prior-guidance and photometric paths.

Figure 2, p. 4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 1 groups normal, depth and mesh metrics; synthetic RGB/depth and mesh visualizations accompany the geometry claim.

Table 1 and Figures 5–6, p. 6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

Component/loss ablations and a dedicated discussion of foundation-model guidance explain which external priors support the decomposition.

Supplement Appendices D–G, pp. 3–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The conclusion identifies first-order interaction as the current scope and explicitly excludes unresolved nested/multibounce transparency.

Section 5, p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For decomposition methods, show intermediate physical quantities and evaluate them separately from final RGB quality.

Boundary: Good rendered appearance does not alone identify the correct decomposition; first-order transport and external-prior assumptions must remain visible.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan throughout Sections 1–5, PDF pp. 1–8; references pp. 9–10: abstract/framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical verification.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-oriented supplement scan: Supplement Appendices A–H, pp. 1–9: dataset/ground truth, baselines, implementation, component/loss ablations, priors, limitations and qualitative results. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 6

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVF open-access CVPR 2026 accepted-paper PDF · 10 pages
• Official CVF supplementary PDF · 9 pages