Writing study: 4D Primitive-Mache: Glueing Primitives for Persistent 4D Scene Reconstruction

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Kirill Mazur, Marwan Taher, Andrew J. Davison · 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

5 / 2

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

≈ 1.91 page-equivalents

Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.5%References / intervening material: ≈ 0.4%Attached appendix: ≈ 19.1%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

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	≈ 0.67 pp.	6.7%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.71 pp.	7.1%
3. Method	3	≈ 2.38 pp.	23.8%
4. Experiments	5	≈ 2.48 pp.	24.8%
5. Limitations	8	≈ 0.41 pp.	4.1%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.11 pp.	1.1%
7. Acknowledgments	8	≈ 0.12 pp.	1.2%
References	9	≈ 0.04 pp.	0.4%
A. J. Davison. CodeSLAM — learning a compact, opti-	9	≈ 1.91 pp.	19.1%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

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

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 2.94 page-equivalents, 2 figure labels and 3 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.02 pp.
1. System Analysis	1	≈ 0.32 pp.
2. Additonal Qualitative Results	1	≈ 0.01 pp.
3. Analytical Jacobian Derivation	1	≈ 0.5 pp.
4. First Order vs Second Order Study	1	≈ 0.93 pp.
5. Run-Time Analysis	2	≈ 0.99 pp.
References	3	≈ 0.16 pp.

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

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Defines persistence as reconstructing previously observed but currently hidden regions, not merely predicting the visible surface at each frame.

2. Argument sequence

   Separates formulation, object representation, frontend, backend, time remapping and motion segmentation before the task-specific evaluations.

3. Evidence and verification

   Table 1 reports per-sequence F-score and also precision/recall, making completeness versus accuracy visible; qualitative examples retain the input video strip.

Problem, claim and contribution

Defines persistence as reconstructing previously observed but currently hidden regions, not merely predicting the visible surface at each frame.

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

Argument and section order

Separates formulation, object representation, frontend, backend, time remapping and motion segmentation before the task-specific evaluations.

Section 3 and Sections 4.1–4.3, pp. 3–6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 reuses object colors from segmentation to primitives and reconstructed scenes, distinguishing gluing observations from replaying them through time.

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

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 1 reports per-sequence F-score and also precision/recall, making completeness versus accuracy visible; qualitative examples retain the input video strip.

Table 1 and Figure 4, p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement provides analytical Jacobians, an optimizer-versus-budget table, a component runtime/memory breakdown and rapid-motion/re-identification failures.

Supplement Sections 3–5, Tables 3–4 and Figure 2, pp. 1–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The limitations section names rigid-primitive assumptions and the absence of explored incremental mapping capabilities.

Section 5, p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Define a new reconstruction property operationally, then visualize the same objects before, during and after occlusion.

Boundary: Persistent reconstruction is restricted to what was observed and the rigid-primitive model; it is not arbitrary nonrigid reconstruction or proven long-term online mapping.

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 1–6, 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: Official ZIP-contained supplement Sections 1–5, pp. 1–3: frontend robustness, component ablations, analytical Jacobians, optimizer comparison, runtime and failure cases. 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 ZIP member PDF; see URL fragment for member · 3 pages