Writing study: UnReflectAnything: RGB-Only Highlight Removal by Rendering Synthetic Specular Supervision

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Alberto Rota, Mert Kiray, Mert Asim Karaoglu, Patrick Ruhkamp, Elena De Momi, Nassir Navab, Benjamin Busam · 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

6 / 3

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	1	≈ 0.48 pp.	4.8%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.86 pp.	8.6%
3. Methodology	3	≈ 3.59 pp.	35.9%
4. Experiments	6	≈ 1.98 pp.	19.8%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.23 pp.	2.3%
References	9	≈ 1.95 pp.	19.5%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Figure 5 · p. 5
• Figure 6 · p. 6
• Table 1 · p. 7
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 7

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; 3 detected figures and 2 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 3.93 page-equivalents, 3 figure labels and 2 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.02 pp.
1. Extended Qualitative Inspection	1	≈ 0.09 pp.
2. Challenging Scenarios	1	≈ 0.16 pp.
3. Architecture Design Choices	1	≈ 2.71 pp.
References	4	≈ 0.95 pp.

• Figure S1 · p. 1
• Table S1 · p. 1
• Table S2 · p. 1
• Figure S2 · p. 2
• Figure S3 · p. 3

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Links a lack of paired diffuse truth to the choice of synthetic highlight supervision, including natural and surgical domains.

2. Argument sequence

   Explains the supervision-generation process before the model architecture and losses, so readers know what the model actually learns from.

3. Evidence and verification

   Tables 1–3 deliberately separate datasets with diffuse-reference truth, datasets without it and downstream matching accuracy.

Problem, claim and contribution

Links a lack of paired diffuse truth to the choice of synthetic highlight supervision, including natural and surgical domains.

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

Argument and section order

Explains the supervision-generation process before the model architecture and losses, so readers know what the model actually learns from.

Sections 3.1–3.3, pp. 3–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 follows an actual RGB example through depth, normals, a lit 3D point representation and the synthesized highlight; symbols retain matching colors.

Figure 2, p. 3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Tables 1–3 deliberately separate datasets with diffuse-reference truth, datasets without it and downstream matching accuracy.

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

Appendix and reproducibility

Representative failure modes appear before extra examples and architecture/loss ablations, keeping challenging cases visible.

Supplement Figure S1 and Tables S1–S2, p. 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The results discuss structural consistency and attenuation rather than treating all metrics as interchangeable measures of successful removal.

Sections 4.2–4.5, pp. 7–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Organize evidence by what can genuinely be measured, especially when some domains have no paired ground truth.

Boundary: Single-image inpainting can invent missing texture; downstream matching gains and attractive examples are not clinical validation or proof of faithful hidden content.

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 1–3, pp. 1–4: extended examples, failure modes, architecture ablations and loss weights. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 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 · 4 pages