Writing study: Hearing the Room Through the Shape of the Drum: Modal-Guided Sound Recovery from Multi-Point Surface Vibrations
← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus
Shai Bagon, Matan Kichler, Mark Sheinin · Official CVPR 2026 oral record
Figure, table and section ledger
Editorial contribution type: Domain-grounded methods & physical systems (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
- ≈ 8.05 page-equivalents
- Main figures / tables
- 7 / 0
- Attached appendix figures / tables
- 0 / 0
- Attached appendix span
- Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total
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 | ≈ 0.87 pp. | 8.7% |
| 2. Background | 2 | ≈ 0.83 pp. | 8.3% |
| 3. Recovering sound from surface vibrations | 3 | ≈ 1.59 pp. | 15.9% |
| 4. Robust mode estimation | 5 | ≈ 0.66 pp. | 6.6% |
| 5. Calibration-based optimal recovery baseline | 5 | ≈ 0.43 pp. | 4.3% |
| 6. Implementation details | 6 | ≈ 0.17 pp. | 1.7% |
| 7. Experimental results | 6 | ≈ 1.8 pp. | 18% |
| 8. Discussion and limitations | 8 | ≈ 0.58 pp. | 5.8% |
| 9. Conclusions | 8 | ≈ 0.26 pp. | 2.6% |
| References | 9 | ≈ 1.95 pp. | 19.5% |
All detected figure and table locations
Main text
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 4 physical pages; 1 detected figures and 4 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.
Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 3.7 page-equivalents, 1 figure labels and 4 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.
Argument and organization
- Problem and contribution
Contrasts favorable membrane-like visual microphones with challenging rigid objects to define the harder measurement setting.
- Argument sequence
Builds the vibration forward model, recovery rule and robust mode estimator before a calibrated reference baseline and experiments.
- Evidence and verification
Figure 5 groups each object's photograph with single-point and recovered spectrograms; Figure 6 deliberately perturbs detected modes to test the explanation.
Problem, claim and contribution
Contrasts favorable membrane-like visual microphones with challenging rigid objects to define the harder measurement setting.
Introduction, p. 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Argument and section order
Builds the vibration forward model, recovery rule and robust mode estimator before a calibrated reference baseline and experiments.
Sections 2–7, pp. 2–7 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Figures, captions and visual explanation
Figure 2 combines mode-gradient arrows, reconstructed shapes, time traces and spectra, linking a physical intuition across representations.
Figure 2, p. 4 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Tables, comparisons and evidence
Figure 5 groups each object's photograph with single-point and recovered spectrograms; Figure 6 deliberately perturbs detected modes to test the explanation.
Figures 5–6, p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Appendix and reproducibility
The supplement separates optical-transfer analysis from extended experimental results, supporting both the sensing model and empirical breadth.
Supplement Appendices A–B, pp. 1–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2
Clarity and writing conventions
Discussion names weak high-frequency modes and spatial sampling limits rather than treating reconstruction quality as independent of sensing geometry.
Section 8, p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2
What to reuse—and what not to infer
Transferable lesson: Bridge a physical model and a perceptual output through intermediate diagnostics, and include a calibrated reference when feasible.
Boundary: Spectrogram appearance is not a substitute for listening tests or full audio metrics; mode-extraction and spatial-sampling assumptions constrain recovery.
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 1–9, 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–B, pp. 1–4: optical-transfer/mode analysis and full experimental results. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.
- 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 CVF open-access CVPR 2026 accepted-paper PDF · 10 pages
- Official CVF supplementary PDF · 4 pages