Writing study: A Style is Worth One Code: Unlocking Code-to-Style Image Generation with Discrete Style Space

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Huijie Liu, Shuhao Cui, Haoxiang Cao, Shuai Ma, Kai Wu, Guoliang Kang · 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

≈ 8.08 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: ≈ 80.8%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.2%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	2	≈ 1.06 pp.	10.6%
2. Related Work	3	≈ 0.49 pp.	4.9%
3. Method	3	≈ 1.62 pp.	16.2%
4. Experiment	5	≈ 3.45 pp.	34.5%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.21 pp.	2.1%
6. Acknowledgement	9	≈ 0.04 pp.	0.4%
References	9	≈ 1.92 pp.	19.2%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 6
• Table 1 · p. 7
• Figure 5 · p. 7
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 7
• Figure 6 · p. 8
• Figure 7 · p. 8
• Figure 8 · 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 8 physical pages; 6 detected figures and 2 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 7.85 page-equivalents, 6 figure labels and 2 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.04 pp.
7. Experimental Details	1	≈ 0.43 pp.
8. Training Dataset	1	≈ 0.22 pp.
9. Analysis of High-frequency Index	1	≈ 7.17 pp.

• Figure A1 · p. 2
• Figure A2 · p. 2
• Table A1 · p. 3
• Figure A3 · p. 3
• Figure A4 · p. 4
• Figure A5 · p. 5
• Figure A7 · p. 7
• Table A2 · p. 8

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Defines code-to-style as a distinct input interface and contrasts it with prompts, images and adapters before introducing the codebook.

2. Argument sequence

   Orders the method by codebook, conditioned diffusion model and code-to-style inference, matching the three stages of the overview.

3. Evidence and verification

   Table 1 separates image-conditioned and code-conditioned comparisons and leaves diversity unreported where a fixed reference makes the measure inapplicable.

Problem, claim and contribution

Defines code-to-style as a distinct input interface and contrasts it with prompts, images and adapters before introducing the codebook.

Introduction and Figure 2, pp. 2–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Orders the method by codebook, conditioned diffusion model and code-to-style inference, matching the three stages of the overview.

Sections 3.1–3.3 and Figure 3, pp. 3–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 uses aligned input/output examples beside a conceptual capability radar; Figure 5 isolates visual-versus-textual injection using the same reference and prompt.

Figures 2 and 5, pp. 3 and 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 1 separates image-conditioned and code-conditioned comparisons and leaves diversity unreported where a fixed reference makes the measure inapplicable.

Table 1, p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement exposes index-frequency behavior and prompts alongside extended visual grids, rather than adding only attractive samples.

Supplement Sections 9–13, pp. 1–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Bold run-in ablation headings identify the design choice being tested, including injection branch and high-frequency suppression.

Section 4.5, p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Make a new interaction paradigm tangible with matched examples; explicitly identify metrics that are not meaningful for a comparison group.

Boundary: The introductory radar is a conceptual comparison, not a calibrated quantitative ranking; retain the measured diversity non-win against Midjourney in Table 1.

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 Sections 7–13, pp. 1–8: experiment details, code frequencies, limitations, interpolation, user study and prompts. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 7

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 · 8 pages