Writing study: Spectrum from Defocus: Fast Spectral Imaging with Chromatic Focal Stack

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

M. Kerem Aydin, Yi-Chun Hung, Jaclyn Pytlarz, Qi Guo, Emma Alexander · 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: Efficiency, inference & 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

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.1 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

5 / 1

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.64%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.36%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	≈ 0.53 pp.	4.82%
2. Related Works	2	≈ 1.42 pp.	12.91%
3. Method	3	≈ 2.45 pp.	22.27%
4. Experimental Results	6	≈ 2.2 pp.	20%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.65 pp.	5.91%
Acknowledgements	9	≈ 0.05 pp.	0.45%
References	9	≈ 2.9 pp.	26.36%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Table 1 · p. 4
• Figure 3 · p. 5
• Figure 4 · p. 7
• Figure 5 · 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 16 physical pages; 20 detected figures and 4 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 15.94 page-equivalents, 20 figure labels and 4 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.02 pp.
S1. Lens positions	1	≈ 0.06 pp.
S2. ADMM Derivation	1	≈ 0.27 pp.
S3. Prior Information	1	≈ 0.27 pp.
S4. Algorithm Implementation	1	≈ 1.37 pp.
S5. Parameter Search	3	≈ 0.73 pp.
S6. Light Efficiency of Optical Components	3	≈ 0.1 pp.
S7. Comparison at Shorter Exposure Times	3	≈ 0.67 pp.
S8. Data Collection Details	4	≈ 0.49 pp.
S9. Spectral-Spatial Resolution Trade-off	5	≈ 0.32 pp.
S10. Optical Aberrations	5	≈ 0.2 pp.
S11. Component Spectral Characteristics	5	≈ 0.06 pp.
S12. Stacked Measurements	5	≈ 0.1 pp.
S13. Chromatic Focal Shift	5	≈ 0.06 pp.
S14. Reconstruction using different number of measurements	5	≈ 0.07 pp.
S15. Depth of Field Analysis	5	≈ 0.26 pp.
S16. Field of View and Off-axis Reconstruction	6	≈ 10.9 pp.

• Figure S1 · p. 2
• Figure S2 · p. 3
• Table S1 · p. 3
• Table S2 · p. 4
• Table S3 · p. 4
• Table S4 · p. 4
• Figure S3 · p. 7
• Figure S4 · p. 8
• Figure S5 · p. 8
• Figure S6 · p. 8
• Figure S7 · p. 8
• Figure S8 · p. 8
• Figure S9 · p. 9
• Figure S10 · p. 9
• Figure S11 · p. 9
• Figure S12 · p. 10
• Figure S13 · p. 11
• Figure S14 · p. 11
• Figure S15 · p. 11
• Figure S16 · p. 12
• Figure S17 · p. 13
• Figure S18 · p. 14
• Figure S19 · p. 15
• Figure S20 · p. 16

Read-only audit 2026-09-26: restored actual supplementary section headings from cached PDF layout, excluding table-of-contents entries and retaining physical PDF page coordinates. This measures reading-order spans, not occupied text area. Figure S2 on p1 is an inline prose reference; actual Figure S2 caption and image are on p3, both visually inspected.

Argument and organization

1. 3. Method

   Connects physical optics and measurement formation to a plug-and-play inverse algorithm.

2. 4. Experimental Results

   Separates simulation conditions from actual prototype acquisition and reconstruction.

Problem, claim and contribution

The paper motivates a joint spatial/spectral/temporal and photon budget, then shows the physical prototype before the algorithm.

Figure 1 p. 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Optical design and inverse computation receive distinct explanations, with explicit calibration versus deployment measurements.

§§3.1–3.2; Figure 2 p. 3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

The prototype results align raw focal stacks, reconstructed spectral channels, ground truth, and per-patch spectral curves in one figure.

Figure 4 p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The comparison table includes reconstruction metrics, compute time, field of view, component count, hardware, exposure, and the component-count convention.

Table 1 p. 4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement reveals retuning requirements and the assumptions used to compare light efficiency, important qualifications to a simple/fast headline.

Supplement §§S4–S7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Simulation and real acquisition are named separately; spectral quality is not inferred from an attractive RGB projection alone.

§§4.1–4.4; Figures 3–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For computational imaging, combine a hardware/measurement diagram with raw-to-reconstruction examples and a multidimensional cost/quality table.

Boundary: Reconstruction time is not total capture time; exposure, mechanical sweep, calibration, and spectral metrics require separate accounting.

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

Scanned the 16-page supplementary structure and captions, including ADMM derivation/implementation, parameter retuning, optical-efficiency assumptions, exposure comparisons, calibration, and robustness analyses.

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 · 11 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 separate supplementary PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 16 pages