--- name: eccv-supplementary description: Use when assembling ECCV supplementary material under its own deadline one week after the paper (March 12 in 2026) — deciding what belongs in the extra week's upload, video and qualitative-result packaging, anonymity scrubbing of archives, and keeping the 14-page LNCS body self-contained. --- # ECCV Supplementary Use this when planning the ECCV supplement. ECCV 2026 kept the classic vision-conference structure the CVF siblings have moved away from: the supplement had **its own deadline a week after the paper** (paper March 5, supplement March 12). That week is a gift with sharp edges — the paper is already frozen, so the supplement can only *support* claims, never *add* them. ## What the extra week is actually for Legitimate uses of March 5 → March 12: - Rendering the qualitative-results PDF and video reels at full quality. - Finishing the code archive scrub (`eccv-artifact-evaluation`). - Formatting extended tables and per-category breakdowns already summarized in the body. Illegitimate uses that reviewers punish: - Landing a result the body cites as "see supplement" but never summarizes — the 14 pages must stand alone. - Squeezing overflow *method* description out of the body; a reader of only the main PDF must be able to reimplement the core. - Adding experiments the frozen body never mentions, hoping reviewers credit them anyway. ## Supplement inventory for a vision paper | Component | Why it earns its place | Packaging rule | |---|---|---| | Qualitative grids (success + failure) | Vision reviewers trust pixels over deltas | Same scenes across all baselines; no cherry-pick without a random-sample page | | Video results | Temporal methods are unjudgeable from stills | Short, compressed, playable without exotic codecs | | Per-dataset / per-category tables | Backs the body's averaged claims | Every table cross-referenced from the body | | Full training recipes + configs | Reproducibility ledger overflow | Mirror the code archive; no contradictions with body numbers | | Extra ablations | Answers the predictable "what about X?" review | One line each in the body's ablation discussion | | Proof/derivation details | Rare at ECCV but present in geometry papers | Notation identical to the body | ## Anonymity scrub for supplement archives Supplement uploads leak identity through channels the paper PDF does not: ```text □ Video files: no institutional watermarks, no title slides with names □ MP4/PDF metadata: author, tool, and GPS fields wiped □ Code: paths (/home//, /cluster//), git config, W&B entities □ Screenshots: browser profiles, OS usernames, bookmark bars cropped out □ Filenames: no lab acronyms or grant codes in archive member names □ Prior-work assets: reused figures that only your group could possess ``` ## Reviewer-attention model Plan around discretionary reading: the qualitative PDF gets skimmed by most reviewers, videos get opened when the paper is temporal, tables get opened when a body claim looks suspicious, and code gets opened by at most one reviewer. Therefore: put the persuasion (visual evidence) where skimming lands, and the protection (recipes, breakdowns) where suspicion lands. ## Size and format constraints Upload caps and allowed formats are set per cycle in OpenReview and were not re-verified for 2026 (待核实) — check the submission form early, because video compression to meet a cap takes an evening you do not want to discover on March 11. Keep one master script that rebuilds the whole supplement archive from sources so a size cut does not require manual re-assembly. ## Output format ```text [Supplement verdict] ready / thin / overloaded / body-dependent [Inventory] present, cross-referenced from body?> [Self-containment check] [Anonymity scrub] fix> [Deadline plan] ```