Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: Spatially-Varying Autofocus

← ICCV 2025 oral writing corpus

Yingsi Qin, Aswin C. Sankaranarayanan, Matthew O'Toole · Official ICCV 2025 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Efficiency, inference & 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
10 physical pages
Before references / appendix
≈ 8.08 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
12 / 1
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.8%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.2%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 headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction1≈ 1.25 pp.12.5%
2. Related Work2≈ 1.04 pp.10.4%
3. The Split-Lohmann Computational Lens3≈ 0.34 pp.3.4%
4. Spatially-Varying Autofocus4≈ 1.69 pp.16.9%
5. Results5≈ 2.48 pp.24.8%
6. Discussion8≈ 0.65 pp.6.5%
7. Conclusion8≈ 0.22 pp.2.2%
References9≈ 1.92 pp.19.2%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Argument and organization

    1. 1 Introduction; 2 Related Work

      Contrasts optical focus control with computational all-in-focus reconstruction and states a light-throughput limitation early.

    2. 3 The Split-Lohmann Computational Lens; 4 Spatially-Varying Autofocus

      Derives programmable focus and adapts contrast- and phase-detection feedback to spatial regions.

    3. 5 Results; 6 Discussion; 7 Conclusion

      Connects prototype photographs, capture-count quality curves and spatial resolution to aperture/aberration constraints.

    Problem, claim and contribution

    The claimed distinction is an optically captured all-in-focus image with no post-capture reconstruction, not an absence of computation in autofocus.

    Figure 1, physical p.1; Table 1, p.2 · Main paper

    Argument and section order

    The optical mechanism is explained before the feedback algorithms, keeping hardware programmability distinct from estimating the appropriate focus pattern.

    Sections 3–4, pp.3–5 · Main paper

    Figures, captions and visual explanation

    The contrast-search diagram links interval refinement to actual captured search images; final quality and MTF plots expose measurement count and resolution separately.

    Figure 3, p.4; Figures 11–12, p.8 · Main paper

    Tables, comparisons and evidence

    Qualitative comparisons disclose 10 contrast-based captures, four phase-based captures, 20 focal-stack captures and one focal-sweep capture; quantitative image-quality curves average two named scenes.

    Section 5, p.6; Figure 11, p.8 · Main paper

    Appendix and reproducibility

    Autofocus pseudocode, prototype details, dual-pixel geometry and aperture calculations are assigned to the supplemental PDF, which was not inspected.

    Sections 4–6, pp.4–6,8 · Main paper

    Clarity and writing conventions

    The introduction discloses at most one-eighth incident-light transmission, while discussion explains additional focus-dependent aperture loss.

    Limitation paragraph, p.2; Section 6, p.8 · Main paper

    What to reuse—and what not to infer

    Transferable lesson: A computational-imaging paper benefits from a clean separation of optical capture, control computation and post-processing, with each baseline’s acquisition budget shown.

    Boundary: Two images are a minimum opportunity, not the capture count used for all reported results. The laboratory prototype has significant light loss and focus-dependent aperture effects; selected scenes and test targets do not validate unrestricted scene geometry, motion or microscopy deployment.

    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, 8

    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.