--- name: eccv-artifact-evaluation description: Use when packaging code, models, and data around an ECCV paper — the anonymous review-time archive under the trailing supplement deadline, the do-not-cite-your-own-repo rule, and the June-to-September post-acceptance runway for a public release aligned with the ECVA and Springer copies of the paper. --- # ECCV Artifact Evaluation Use this for artifact strategy at ECCV, which has no badge-granting artifact track: artifacts live in two phases with opposite rules. Before decisions, code is a **sealed, anonymous supplement**; after the June decision, it becomes a **public release with a ten-week runway** before the September conference makes the paper visible to the whole field. ## Phase 1 — sealed archive (review time) - Upload with the supplement by the trailing deadline (March 12 in 2026, one week after the paper). - The submission text must not link to the authors' public repository even if it already exists — ECCV 2026 policy treated that as an anonymity break, while arXiv posting itself was fine. - Assume one reviewer opens the archive for ten minutes. Optimize for that reader: a README that maps each main-table row to a command, pinned dependencies, and one tiny demo input that runs on CPU. - Scrub the usual vision-stack leaks: wandb entity names in configs, dataset paths containing lab or cluster names, git history, notebook metadata, license headers with author names, model cards naming the group. ## What vision reviewers actually probe | Artifact | Probe | Failure they report | |---|---|---| | Inference code + checkpoint | Run the demo image | Output does not resemble the paper's qualitative figures | | Training configs | Diff against the paper's Sec. 4 numbers | Config hyperparameters contradict the text | | Evaluation script | Check the metric implementation | Nonstandard IoU/FID variant silently inflates scores | | Data tooling | Check preprocessing + splits | Test-set contamination via cropping or dedup choices | The metric-implementation row is the highest-yield check to run on yourself: vision metrics have venue-standard reference implementations, and a rebuttal cannot repair a nonstandard one discovered in review. ## Phase 2 — the ten-week release runway The 2026 calendar gave accepted authors June 17 (decisions) to roughly mid-August (ECVA/Springer open-access copies appear ~4 weeks pre-conference) to ship the release the paper's readers will find: 1. Week 1–2: de-anonymize the sealed archive; make the repo the camera-ready URL points to, not a placeholder. 2. Week 3–5: release checkpoints with hashes, licences chosen deliberately (the Springer copyright covers the paper, not your code or weights — pick code and model licences yourself). 3. Week 6–8: project page linking arXiv, the upcoming ECVA page, data cards, and a results table that matches the camera-ready exactly. 4. Week 9–10: freeze; conference week issues should be answered from a stable main branch, because Malmö attendees will clone it during the poster session. ## Dataset and benchmark releases If the contribution *is* a dataset or benchmark, plan hosting that outlives the conference cycle: institutional or community storage rather than a personal drive link, versioned splits, a datasheet, and licence terms compatible with the source imagery. A benchmark whose test server or download link dies before the next even-year ECCV is a citation dead end. ```bash # minimal release self-check before announcing git clone fresh && cd fresh pip install -r requirements.txt # pinned, resolvable python demo.py --input assets/demo.jpg # CPU-runnable smoke test python eval.py --split val --ckpt # reproduces one paper row ``` ## Output format ```text [Phase] sealed-supplement / release-runway / post-conference [Anonymity scrub] [Reviewer-probe risks] [Release plan] [Paper-artifact consistency] reproducing command> ```