Writing study: Plant Taxonomy Meets Plant Counting: A Fine-Grained, Taxonomic Dataset for Counting Hundreds of Plant Species

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Jinyu Xu, Tianqi Hu, Xiaonan Hu, Letian Zhou, Songliang Cao, Meng Zhang, Hao Lu · 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

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.08 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

6 / 4

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.45%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.55%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	≈ 1.48 pp.	13.45%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 1.01 pp.	9.18%
3. Taxonomic Plant Counting Dataset	3	≈ 2.55 pp.	23.18%
4. Results and Discussion	6	≈ 2.4 pp.	21.82%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.28 pp.	2.55%
References	9	≈ 2.92 pp.	26.55%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 2
• Table 1 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Figure 5 · p. 6
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 7
• Table 4 · p. 8
• Figure 6 · 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 4 physical pages; 6 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 3.85 page-equivalents, 6 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.19 pp.
A. MILP-based Dataset Partitioning	1	≈ 0.84 pp.
B. Hierarchical Taxonomic Encoding	2	≈ 0.59 pp.
C. Visualizations and Examples	2	≈ 2.24 pp.

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

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Explains why counting plant tissues, organs, individuals and populations differs from conventional rigid-object counting.

2. Argument sequence

   Moves from taxonomy and collection through annotation, partitioning and statistics before benchmarking and transfer analysis.

3. Evidence and verification

   Dataset comparison records images, instance counts, resolution and class count; benchmark results retain shot counts, backbones and both validation/test metrics.

Problem, claim and contribution

Explains why counting plant tissues, organs, individuals and populations differs from conventional rigid-object counting.

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

Argument and section order

Moves from taxonomy and collection through annotation, partitioning and statistics before benchmarking and transfer analysis.

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

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 connects organizational level to acquisition scale and environment; Figure 3 uses a nested taxonomy treemap instead of flattening all labels into one list.

Figures 2–3, pp. 2 and 4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Dataset comparison records images, instance counts, resolution and class count; benchmark results retain shot counts, backbones and both validation/test metrics.

Tables 1–2, pp. 3 and 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The split is made reproducible with an explicit optimization formulation, followed by illustrations of growth-stage, illumination and density challenges.

Supplement Appendices A–C, pp. 1–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Sections on cross-dataset transfer and taxonomic information make the intended scientific questions more specific than a generic leaderboard.

Sections 4.4–4.5, p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For structured datasets, visualize the label hierarchy and explain how the split tests generalization along that hierarchy.

Boundary: Taxonomic disjointness and visual similarity are not the same thing; explain the actual held-out unit and retain group-specific errors.

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. 9–11: abstract/framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical verification.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-oriented supplement scan: Official ZIP-contained supplement Appendices A–C, pp. 1–4: MILP split formulation, taxonomic encoding and challenging examples. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

2, 3

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 · 11 pages
• Official CVF supplementary ZIP member PDF; see URL fragment for member · 4 pages