--- name: pacific-graphics description: Use when targeting Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for computer graphics. --- # Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics) ## Conference positioning Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics) is a top computer-science conference venue for graphics, visualization, geometric computing, rendering, animation, and Asia-Pacific visual computing. It rewards a visual computing paper with specialist novelty and clear comparative demonstrations. Treat this skill as a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal. Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in `../../resources/conference-roster.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`. ## When to trigger - The author names Pacific Graphics / Pacific Graphics as the target venue. - A manuscript in graphics needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted. - The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative. - The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue. ## Scope & topic fit - Core fit: graphics, visualization, geometric computing, rendering, animation, and Asia-Pacific visual computing. - Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis. - The paper should explain why the result matters to Pacific Graphics's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context. - Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness. - If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence. ## Venue-specific calibration - Reviewer lens: Treat Pacific Graphics as a focused Asia-Pacific visual computing venue. A good submission foregrounds graphics technique, comparative visuals, and regional/international visual-computing relevance, not only broad multimedia or HCI claims. - Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar. - Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: graphics, visualization, geometric computing, rendering, animation, and Asia-Pacific visual computing. - Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: graphics, visualization, geometric, computing, rendering, animation, asia-pacific, visual, venue-specific, contribution, pg2026, nccu. - Official anchor domain: pg2026.nccu.edu.tw. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit. ## Method & evidence bar - Use current vision baselines, strong ablations, dataset-specific protocols, and qualitative examples that reveal failure modes. - Keep the anonymous submission self-contained; external material should follow the current-cycle policy exactly. - For generated or foundation-model outputs, show robustness, data provenance, and evaluation beyond cherry-picked visuals. - For Pacific Graphics, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a visual computing paper with specialist novelty and clear comparative demonstrations. - Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim. ## Structure & house style - Lead with the visual problem and the technical insight; then prove it across datasets, metrics, and ablations. - Make figures do work: pipeline, qualitative wins/failures, and compact quantitative comparisons. - Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles. - The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim. - Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution. ## Official-cycle checklist - Open the live official venue page: https://pg2026.nccu.edu.tw/ - Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements. - Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle. - Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at Pacific Graphics, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language. - [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support. - [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle computer graphics papers and explains the technical delta. - [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements. - [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A thin architecture tweak with marginal gains and no analysis. - Using non-comparable baselines, private data splits, or hidden external links that violate review policy. - Ethics, consent, or biometric/medical claims handled as boilerplate rather than as real constraints. - Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy. - A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving Pacific Graphics reviewers too little technical or empirical substance. ## Re-routing decision If the paper misses Pacific Graphics's bar, compare against `computer-vision-and-pattern-recognition` / `international-conference-on-computer-vision` / `european-conference-on-computer-vision` / `winter-conference-on-applications-of-computer-vision`. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics) [Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other [Main evidence gap] [Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready [Top rejection risk] [Re-route suggestion] ```