Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: Uncalibrated Structure from Motion on a Sphere

← ICCV 2025 oral writing corpus

Jonathan Ventura, Viktor Larsson, Fredrik Kahl · Official ICCV 2025 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Theory & formal analysis (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
≈ 8.04 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
4 / 3
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.4%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.6%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: Restore the source heading across its line break; the measured start position is unchanged.

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 headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction1≈ 1 pp.10%
2. Related work2≈ 0.56 pp.5.6%
3. Multi-view geometry of calibrated and uncalibrated spherical motion2≈ 1.95 pp.19.5%
4. Uncalibrated global structure-from-motion4≈ 0.9 pp.9%
5. Experiments5≈ 3.02 pp.30.2%
6. Conclusions and Future Work8≈ 0.15 pp.1.5%
Acknowledgments8≈ 0.15 pp.1.5%
References9≈ 1.96 pp.19.6%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Argument and organization

    1. 1 Introduction; 2 Related work

      Introduces inward- and outward-facing spherical capture and a specific failure of generic SfM initialization.

    2. 3 Multi-view geometry

      Moves from calibrated parameterizations and two-view ambiguity to a three-view noncriticality argument.

    3. 4 Global SfM; 5 Experiments; 6 Conclusions

      Converts the propositions into initialization/refinement steps, then checks synthetic conditioning, phone captures and a calibrated camera rig.

    Problem, claim and contribution

    The abstract retains the single fixed unknown focal length assumption and distinguishes two-view criticality from the multi-view result.

    Abstract; Sections 3.3–3.4, physical pp.1,3–4 · Main paper

    Argument and section order

    Formal geometry precedes a three-step implementation roadmap; general bundle adjustment is explicitly separated from the spherical initialization model.

    Propositions 1–3 and Sections 4.1–4.3, pp.3–5 · Main paper

    Figures, captions and visual explanation

    A labeled ellipse/hyperbola diagram marks the common line and four ordered points used by the adjacent argument, rather than serving as decorative geometry.

    Figure 2 and Section 3.4, p.4 · Main paper

    Tables, comparisons and evidence

    PhoneSweep reports device-specific and combined metrics; a separate table includes with/without general BA variants and calibrated COLMAP as a privileged-input reference.

    Tables 1–2, p.7 · Main paper

    Appendix and reproducibility

    Parameter derivations, proposition proofs, cost-function behavior, synthetic setup and downstream reconstructions are assigned to supplementary material; only the pointers were inspected.

    Sections 3.2–3.3, 4.2 and 5, pp.3,5,8 · Main paper

    Clarity and writing conventions

    The dataset description explicitly calls the phone-camera labels pseudo-ground truth from extra general-motion video, unlike the externally calibrated rig.

    Section 5.2.2, p.7 · Main paper

    What to reuse—and what not to infer

    Transferable lesson: Keep theorem assumptions visible while explaining where the practical pipeline relaxes them, and name pseudo-ground truth as such.

    Boundary: The argument scan does not verify proofs. PhoneSweep is not external motion-capture truth; runtime excludes feature extraction/matching, and the broad table caption must be read alongside the calibrated reference rows.

    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.