Writing study: Towards Photorealistic and Efficient Bokeh Rendering via Diffusion Framework

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Linxiao Shi, Siming Zheng, Zerong Wang, Hao Zhang, Jinwei Chen, Bo Li, Shifeng Chen, Peng-Tao Jiang · 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

≈ 8.05 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

7 / 2

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.5%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.5%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	≈ 0.86 pp.	8.6%
2. Related works	2	≈ 0.66 pp.	6.6%
3. Methodology	3	≈ 1.77 pp.	17.7%
4. Experiment	5	≈ 3.49 pp.	34.9%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.22 pp.	2.2%
References	9	≈ 1.95 pp.	19.5%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

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

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 4.88 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.
1. Degradation-aware Depth Estimation	1	≈ 0.09 pp.
2. Detail of bokeh training datasets	1	≈ 0.44 pp.
3. Quantitative comparison on Real-ISR	1	≈ 0.14 pp.
4. More Results	1	≈ 0.72 pp.
References	2	≈ 3.46 pp.

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 1
• Table 1 · p. 2
• Table 2 · p. 2
• Figure 3 · p. 3
• Figure 4 · p. 3
• Figure 5 · p. 4
• Figure 6 · p. 5

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Describes high-zoom degradation and error accumulation before comparing the single-stage solution to separate super-resolution and bokeh processing.

2. Argument sequence

   Introduces the unified framework, alternating training, focus-aware attention and degradation-aware depth in separate method subsections.

3. Evidence and verification

   Table 1 gives input resolution and GPU for latency and reports both fidelity and perceptual metrics; user preferences are presented separately.

Problem, claim and contribution

Describes high-zoom degradation and error accumulation before comparing the single-stage solution to separate super-resolution and bokeh processing.

Introduction and Figure 2, p. 2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Introduces the unified framework, alternating training, focus-aware attention and degradation-aware depth in separate method subsections.

Sections 3.1–3.4, pp. 3–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 keeps the same input/output task across three compact pipeline rows so extra inference stages and their consequences are easy to see.

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

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 1 gives input resolution and GPU for latency and reports both fidelity and perceptual metrics; user preferences are presented separately.

Table 1 and Figure 5, p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement isolates the depth estimator and standalone restoration and shows adjustable aperture and focus-distance sequences.

Supplement Sections 1–4, pp. 1–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Ablation headings repeat the module names introduced in the method, preserving a direct design-to-test correspondence.

Section 4.4, pp. 7–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Make a pipeline simplification visible before detailing its modules, and evaluate quality and latency under a fully stated setup.

Boundary: The measured GPU runtime is not a mobile-device latency guarantee; the table also contains perceptual-metric non-wins.

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 1–4, pp. 1–5: depth module, synthetic data, standalone restoration, aperture/focus controls and qualitative comparisons. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

2, 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 · 5 pages