Writing study: Differentiable Room Acoustic Rendering with Multi-View Vision Priors

ICCV overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← ICCV 2025 oral writing corpus

Derong Jin, Ruohan Gao · Official ICCV 2025 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

≈ 8.05 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

5 / 3

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

No boundary detected; not assumed zero

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.18%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.82%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.

Source-bound correction: Physical p.6 raster confirms Table1 and section4 despite malformed/overwide extracted equation text. Restore those locators (page-relative visual estimate for p.6) and section5 from source text. Main has Figures1–5 and Tables1–3.

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	≈ 1.24 pp.	11.27%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.62 pp.	5.64%
3. Approach	3	≈ 3.08 pp.	28%
4. Experiments	6	≈ 2.6 pp.	23.64%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.2 pp.	1.82%
References	9	≈ 2.95 pp.	26.82%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 4
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Figure 3 · p. 6
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 7
• Figure 4 · p. 8
• Figure 5 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Argument and organization

1. 1 Introduction; 2 Related Work

   Contrasts data-demanding learned acoustic fields with costly physics-based methods, then motivates material cues from images.

2. 3 Approach

   Defines measured inputs and RIR decomposition before beam tracing, multi-scale response, visual aggregation and a residual field.

3. 4 Experiments; 5 Conclusion

   Separates two real-room datasets, nested data budgets, component controls and interpretable spatial/material views.

Problem, claim and contribution

Uses a physical cross-modal rationale: geometry and material affect both visible appearance and acoustic reflection, while sparse measured RIRs alone underdetermine surface response.

Sections 1 and 3.1, physical pp.1–3 · Main paper

Argument and section order

The overview decomposes source, reflected and residual responses and maps each term to its own method subsection before the evaluation.

Sections 3.2–3.6, pp.3–6 · Main paper

Figures, captions and visual explanation

A two-band diagram aligns visual processing with acoustic beam tracing; a residual-field inset shows secondary sources, and loss/backpropagation arrows close the learning loop.

Figure 2, p.4 · Main paper

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The HAA table groups identical metric/unit columns by room and specifies 12 training listener locations. The prose explicitly names the Hallway C50 exception.

Table 2 and Section 4.2, p.7 · Main paper

Appendix and reproducibility

Beam geometry, covariance derivation, extra metric results, implementation and waveform comparisons are deferred to the supplement; only their main-text pointers were inspected.

Sections 3.3–3.4 and 4, pp.3–7 · Main paper

Clarity and writing conventions

Dataset descriptions distinguish real measurements, Polycam-rendered visual inputs and coarse planar geometry used for beam tracing.

Section 4.1, p.6 · Main paper

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Make measured, rendered and approximated quantities distinct; repeat units and acquisition budgets next to every cross-scene comparison.

Boundary: Material-colored visualizations are interpretations of learned responses, not independent material measurements. Table 3 does not show every removal worsening every metric, so avoid universal component-necessity wording.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-10-07

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan across the main manuscript, physical PDF pp.1–8, covering framing, section progression, method explanations, captions, comparison protocols and concluding scope; reference boundary checked. Selected full-page rasters were inspected. Not exhaustive line-by-line reading, proof verification or experimental reproduction.

Appendix / supplement

Main-paper appendix/supplement references were checked. A separate supplementary source is linked in the inventory but was not retrieved or inspected; its contents are not included in the reading or visual-page counts.

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 ICCV 2025 accepted-paper PDF, retrieved 7 October 2026; CVF states identical to accepted version except watermark; not assumed identical to initial submission · 11 pages