Writing study: ImmerIris: A Large-Scale Dataset and Benchmark for Off-Axis and Unconstrained Iris Recognition in Immersive Applications

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Yuxi Mi, Qiuyang Yuan, Zhizhou Zhong, Xuan Zhao, Jiaogen Zhou, Fubao Zhu, Jihong Guan, Shuigeng Zhou · 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: Datasets, benchmarks & measurement (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

≈ 8.14 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

6 / 7

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 81.4%References / intervening material: ≈ 18.6%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	≈ 1.4 pp.	14%
2. We establish a comprehensive set of evaluation protocols	2	≈ 0.02 pp.	0.2%
3. We propose a simple yet effective iris recognition	2	≈ 3.04 pp.	30.4%
4. The Proposed Method	5	≈ 0.98 pp.	9.8%
5. Benchmarks	6	≈ 2.04 pp.	20.4%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.18 pp.	1.8%
Acknowledgements	9	≈ 0.09 pp.	0.9%
References	9	≈ 1.86 pp.	18.6%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

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

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 5.93 page-equivalents, 5 figure labels and 5 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.12 pp.
A. Summary of Existing Datasets	1	≈ 0.14 pp.
B. Annotation Details	1	≈ 0.54 pp.
C. Protocol Details	1	≈ 1.56 pp.
D. Additional Visualizations	3	≈ 0.22 pp.
E. Discussion of Normalization	3	≈ 1 pp.
F. Additional Experimental Results	4	≈ 0.54 pp.
G. Ethical Discussion	5	≈ 0.42 pp.
H. Dataset Availability	5	≈ 0.09 pp.
References	5	≈ 1.3 pp.

• Figure 7 · p. 1
• Table 8 · p. 1
• Figure 8 · p. 2
• Figure 9 · p. 2
• Table 9 · p. 2
• Table 10 · p. 3
• Figure 10 · p. 3
• Figure 11 · p. 3
• Table 11 · p. 4
• Table 12 · p. 4

Argument and organization

1. Application mismatch and collection

   Show how headset acquisition differs from controlled iris imaging, then document collection and cleaning.

2. Factorized protocols and baseline

   Define combined/isolated challenge tests before evaluating a deliberately simple normalization-free method.

Problem, claim and contribution

Traditional versus immersive samples establish the acquisition shift before the benchmark or new baseline is introduced.

Figure 1 and Introduction · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Acquisition, annotation, subject split, protocol design and evaluation setup occupy explicit subsections, making the benchmark protocol part of the contribution.

Sections 3.1–3.5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 5 pairs quality-score distributions and visible degradation examples; Table 2 then maps each protocol to factors with an explicit symbol legend.

Figure 5 and Table 2, PDF p. 4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 5 groups isolated challenges across columns and left/right/dual-eye settings down rows, retaining metric direction and fixed FAR thresholds.

Table 5, PDF p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

Supplementary tables expose quality thresholds and genuine/impostor pair counts, while separate ethics and availability sections address reuse of biometric data.

Supplement Tables 9–10 and Sections G–H, pp. 2–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The manuscript names what each protocol isolates rather than treating a large dataset count as sufficient evidence of benchmark value.

Section 3.4 and Table 2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For a dataset paper, connect each claimed challenge to a measurable annotation and an explicit protocol; publish pair counts and subject-disjoint split logic.

Boundary: Protocol factors are not all independently manipulable; Table 2 distinguishes explicit, partial and implicit inclusion. Do not summarize the benchmark as perfectly orthogonal or its baseline as winning every gaze setting.

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

Manuscript-wide writing scan of main PDF pp. 1–8: framing, section structure, method exposition, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical proof audit or reproduction.

Appendix / supplement

Separate supplement pp. 1–6 scanned: dataset comparison, annotation thresholds/counts, protocol pair counts, normalization cases, extended results, ethics and availability.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 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 CVPR 2026 CVF proceedings PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 10 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 separate supplementary PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 6 pages