ECCV
ECCV on Beyond Market Intelligence: a running collection of 11 stories we have gathered and hand-picked because they are worth your time. Every post here touches on eccv in some way — the news, the analysis, the deep dives, and the occasional surprise find. Acme AI is the next-generation, AI-powered spreadsheet platform built to replace Excel and redefine how analysts, data scientists, and enterprise teams work with data. New stories are added to this page as we find them, so check back if you want to keep up with what is happening around eccv, or subscribe to the RSS feed to get them as soon as they are published. Browse the collection below, or head back to the homepage to see everything Beyond Market Intelligence is covering right now.
ECCV: Will there be another confirmation after “provisionally accepted”? [D]
Authors awaiting final confirmation from ECCV regarding their "provisionally accepted" papers face a common and pressing concern. The delay in issuing definitive acceptance—particularly after camera-ready submission—creates significant hurdles for administrative tasks like funding requests, visa applications, and travel planning. While organizers are addressing the issue, timely and clear communication is crucial. This situation echoes challenges faced by authors navigating ARR submissions, as discussed in "First time ARR users – some questions," highlighting the need for streamlined processes and readily available documentation.
How papers are selected for Best Paper, Oral, or Highlight presentation at major ML/CV conferences such as CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, NeurIPS, and ICLR? [D]
Selecting papers for Best Paper, Oral, or Highlight presentations at leading ML/CV conferences (CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, NeurIPS, ICLR) involves a multi-stage process guided by expert committees. Typically, Area Chairs (ACs) and Senior Area Chairs (SACs), alongside the program chairs, evaluate submissions based on reviewer scores, novelty, and potential impact. Decisions are not based on direct votes or nominations, but rather a thorough assessment of the work. Committees often consider the camera-ready version, allowing for final adjustments and presentation readiness.
For ECCV, Springer Metor. How are we supposed to upload the files? [D]
Submitting to ECCV and Springer Metor can feel complex, but the process is straightforward. To ensure a smooth upload, package your source files and the final paper PDF together into a single ZIP archive. This archive should be uploaded directly to the submission platform. The mention of a "supplementary_material" folder in some communications refers to a separate location for additional assets; please consult the specific submission guidelines for detailed instructions. For further insights into deploying AI models, explore "How're you deploying LLMs in production now-a-days?"
[ECCV 2026] Paper Decision Appeals Discussion [D]
Following the release of meta-reviews for ECCV 2026, authors facing rejection have the opportunity to submit appeals addressing specific concerns. These appeals are considered for policy errors, clerical oversights, or significant misinterpretations of the paper's contribution type—a historically rare occurrence. The process utilizes a Google Form, allowing authors to articulate their rationale. For instance, discrepancies between reviewer feedback and established guidelines, such as those detailed in "Recommendations for speech annotation tools," warrant careful consideration before submitting.
What does provisional paper acceptance mean in ECCV? Is that the default message everyone gets? [D]
Receiving a “provisional paper acceptance” notification from ECCV signifies a preliminary positive evaluation, but it’s not a guaranteed spot in the conference program. This message is, in fact, the standard initial response for many submissions. It means the review committee sees merit in your work and is tentatively accepting it, pending final checks and potential adjustments based on reviewer feedback. For further insights on research dissemination, consider exploring our discussion around "Best library for releasing my research optimization algorithm?"—a common challenge researchers face.
Workshop submission for main conference paper under review [D]
Navigating the submission landscape for conferences and workshops can be complex, especially when considering the implications of simultaneous submissions. If you have a paper under review for ECCV but wish to submit it to another workshop, it’s essential to understand the policies surrounding dual submissions. Since the workshop is non-archival and takes place after ECCV's decisions, your participation shouldn’t conflict with ECCV's review process.
[ECCV 2026] No modified date next to reviews [D]
In the context of ECCV 2026, it's concerning that none of the reviewers have provided recent justifications for their scores, particularly given that my rebuttal addressed all concerns. As of now, my score stands at 433, yet no reviewer has updated their feedback since May 12th or later. This pattern echoes my experience with CVPR, where the absence of justification led to an unjustified rejection despite clear responses to concerns.
ECCV Stupid Reviewer Behavior (Any AC here?) [R]
Navigating the peer review process can be challenging, especially when faced with mixed feedback like 1/3, 4/3, and 4/5 ratings. It’s understandable to feel frustrated by a reviewer who initially rejects your paper but suggests that further experiments could influence their decision. This situation raises questions about the reviewer's criteria and the potential for change after a rebuttal. Engaging with the reviewer’s concerns thoughtfully is essential, but it’s equally important to assess whether the extensive effort aligns with your goals.
ECCV reviewer wants me to compare and contrast to my own paper. [D]
In response to the ECCV reviewer's request, it is essential to address the potential overlap between our current submission and the older arXiv version. While the title and method name have changed, the core results and figures remain consistent, with minor additions in the latest iteration. The reviewer’s use of specific language from our previous work, though not cited, suggests they may be referencing our earlier paper.
[ECCV 2026] Review Discussion [D]
The ECCV 2026 review discussion is now open! With reviews expected to be released by May 2nd, we anticipate they will arrive within the next 48 hours, although no specific time has been provided this year. This thread serves as a space for everyone to share insights and reactions to the reviews as they come in. Let's engage in thoughtful conversation and support one another during this important time. Wishing everyone the best of luck with their submissions!
[ECCV2026] Workshop notification of reject/accept[D]
The deadline for workshop proposal decisions for ECCV 2026 has passed, yet many, including myself, have yet to receive any updates. This leaves us wondering about the status of our submissions and whether others have encountered similar delays. Open communication is essential in these moments, as we are eager to learn about the acceptance or rejection of our proposals. If you submitted a workshop proposal this year, please share your experience and any updates you may have received.