--- name: wacv-writing-style description: Use when revising a WACV paper's prose and first page, covering how to write for the chosen Applications or Algorithms track, leading with the real-world constraint or the method, self-contained figure captions inside the 8-page-including-figures budget, scoped claims, and a first page that pre-empts the Revise-and-Resubmit question. --- # WACV Writing Style Use this to make a WACV paper read the way its reviewers judge it. The governing fact is the two-round model: a first page that answers the reviewer's obvious question earns *Accept*; one that leaves it open earns *Revise and Resubmit*. Facts are the WACV 2026/2027 cycles as read on 2026-07-09. ## Write for your track The two tracks reward different first pages, and writing to the wrong one draws the wrong review: | If your track is… | Lead the first page with… | The reviewer is asking… | |---|---|---| | **Applications** | The real-world constraint and why existing methods break under it | Does this system actually work under the deployment constraint you name? | | **Algorithms** | The method/mechanism and the matched-baseline comparison | Is the algorithmic idea new, and does the gain survive fair comparison? | An Applications paper that opens with "a novel attention module" and an Algorithms paper that opens with "an important real-world problem" have each buried their contribution under the other track's framing. ## The first-page arc Put the contribution in the first page: **problem/constraint → why prior methods are insufficient (each named) → method or system → evidence → why it fits the track**. Every major claim on that page should point to a figure, a table, or a section — not to a promise. Because WACV reviewers see three reviews reconciled by an AC, a page that a busy reader can summarize in two sentences travels further than a dense one. ## Figures are page budget The cap is **8 pages including figures and tables**. A teaser, two qualitative grids, and three result tables can eat half the paper, so design figures as line items: - One teaser that states the contribution visually, with a **self-contained caption** a reviewer can read without the body. - Qualitative results that a reviewer will judge by eye — check they render at print zoom. - Tables that report the comparison *under the stated condition*, with uncertainty. ```text Caption test (apply to every figure): Can a reviewer who reads ONLY this caption state (a) what is shown and (b) what it demonstrates about the claim? If not, rewrite the caption, not the body. ``` ## Scope every claim WACV's applications framing punishes overclaiming quickly, because a reviewer can often name the deployment case you did not test. Scope claims to the domain, constraint, and hardware you actually demonstrated ("row-crop segmentation at 2 W in sub-10-lux light"), and disclaim what you did not show. A scoped claim that holds beats a broad claim a reviewer can break in one sentence — and broken claims are what turn into revision requests. ## Compress for eight pages - Move protocol detail, extra qualitative results, and derivations to the anonymized supplement (see `wacv-supplementary`), keeping the body's argument intact. - Cut roadmap sentences that restate the table of contents; spend the space on the gap paragraph, where reviewers form their opinion. - Keep notation and baselines consistent between body and supplement so a Round 2 reviewer re-reading a revised paper is never confused by a moved number. ## Reverify each cycle - The 8-page-including-figures rule and the references-only overflow. - The two-track review criteria and any track-specific formatting. - The author-kit style version. ## Output format ```text [Track fit] first page leads with the right thing for : yes/no [First-page arc] constraint/method → gap → evidence present: yes/no [Figure budget] pages spent on figures/tables: · captions self-contained: yes/no [Overclaim risk] → scoped: yes/no [Compression] what moves to supplement: ```