Writing study: PAVAS: Physics-Aware Video-to-Audio Synthesis

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Oh Hyun-Bin, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Tae-Hyun Oh, Yuki Mitsufuji · 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: 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

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.19 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

3 / 3

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 74.45%References / intervening material: ≈ 25.55%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	≈ 1.29 pp.	11.73%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.64 pp.	5.82%
3. Physics-Aware Video-to-Audio Synthesis	3	≈ 2.95 pp.	26.82%
4. Experiments	6	≈ 2.53 pp.	23%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.3 pp.	2.73%
6. Acknowledgments	9	≈ 0.14 pp.	1.27%
References	9	≈ 2.81 pp.	25.55%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 4
• Table 1 · p. 7
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Figure 3 · p. 8
• Table 3 · 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 14 physical pages; 6 detected figures and 8 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.6; ≈ 8.11 page-equivalents, 3 figure labels and 4 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
1. adaptive normalization of each stream using parameters	6	≈ 0.02 pp.
2. concatenated self-attention over the audio, vision, and	6	≈ 0.02 pp.
3. modality-wise splitting of the joint output back into au-	6	≈ 0.02 pp.
4. per-stream feed-forward refinement.	6	≈ 7.11 pp.
References	14	≈ 0.95 pp.

• Table S1 · p. 2
• Figure S1 · p. 2
• Figure S2 · p. 2
• Table S2 · p. 3
• Figure S3 · p. 4
• Table S3 · p. 6
• Table S4 · p. 6
• Figure S4 · p. 7
• Table S5 · p. 8
• Table S6 · p. 8
• Table S7 · p. 10
• Table S8 · p. 11
• Figure S5 · p. 12
• Figure S6 · p. 13

Argument and organization

1. Perceptual success versus physical mismatch

   Motivate mass/velocity conditioning as distinct from semantic or temporal alignment.

2. Estimator, adapter and evaluation

   Separate physical estimation from audio conditioning, then assess perceptual, physical and human judgments.

Problem, claim and contribution

A familiar impact-sound example distinguishes recognizing an event from producing audio that changes plausibly with its physical dynamics.

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

Argument and section order

Backbone preliminaries precede the Physics Parameter Estimator and Phy-Adapter, keeping inherited multimodal generation separate from the added physics path.

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

Figures, captions and visual explanation

The pipeline caption explicitly defines each encoder abbreviation and distinguishes dashed conditioning routes and the physics-highlighted path, a useful legend for a heterogeneous multimodal system.

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

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The main comparison caption discloses sample-rate differences, reproduced results, author-provided samples and parameter-count exclusions; a separate human table evaluates physical plausibility alongside quality and alignment.

Tables 1–2, PDF p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The official ZIP supplement evaluates mass and proxy velocity estimates, perturbs physical cues, tests missing-cue fallback and defines the correlation metric. It also exposes prompts, module-wise runtime, the human-study protocol and occlusion handling rather than only favorable audio examples.

Official ZIP PDF supplement §§B–J, PDF pp. 1–13; Figures S1–S4, Tables S1–S8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Results are organized as questions about existing models, improvement and causal design factors, helping readers distinguish diagnostic evidence from the final model score.

Section 4.2, PDF p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: When adding a new notion of quality, define it separately from established metrics and show a controlled ablation that distinguishes extra training from the proposed conditioning signal.

Boundary: Estimated mass and velocity are uncertain monocular quantities; a physical-plausibility rating is not proof of exact physical sound synthesis. Audio examples were not listened to in this writing scan.

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 PDF pp. 1–11: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–14, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Official ZIP PDF supplement §§B–J, PDF pp. 1–13; Figures S1–S4, Tables S1–S8. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 6

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 open-access accepted manuscript; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 11 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 supplementary ZIP PDF member: 38566_supp.pdf; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 14 pages