cvpr-submission

name	cvpr-submission
description	Use when auditing a CVPR submission before the OpenReview deadline, covering abstract registration and profile requirements, the 8-page limit including figures and tables, the Compute Reporting Form, anonymity and external-link bans, dual-submission attestations, reviewer-duty enrollment, and desk-reject triage.

CVPR Submission

Run this audit in the two weeks before the CVPR paper deadline. All specifics below are the CVPR 2026 cycle as read on 2026-07-08 (paper deadline November 13, 2025); the next Program Chairs will rewrite details, so reopen the current Author Guidelines and Dates pages at cvpr.thecvf.com before acting on any number here.

The three deadlines that catch people

CVPR staggers three hard cut-offs a week apart, and the first one is the one teams miss:

1. Abstract registration + OpenReview profiles (Nov 6, 2025 in the 2026 cycle). Every listed author — including the advisor added "later" and the intern who wrote one module — needed a complete, valid OpenReview profile by this date. An incomplete profile on any coauthor is desk-reject exposure for the paper.
2. Full paper (Nov 13, 2025, 11:59pm AoE, announced as unmovable). The PDF, the author list, subject areas, conflicts, and the Compute Reporting Form all land here.
3. Supplementary material (Nov 20, 2025, AoE). One extra week — but only for the supplement; nothing in the main PDF can change after the paper deadline.

Page discipline, CVPR flavor

The cap is 8 pages including figures and tables, with extra pages permitted only for cited references. That "including figures" clause is what distinguishes CVPR budgeting from text-limited venues: a half-page teaser figure, two qualitative grids, and three result tables can consume four of your eight pages. Plan figures as page-budget line items, not decorations, and treat any style-file edit, margin nudge, or font substitution as a desk-reject trigger — over-length and mis-formatted papers are rejected without review. Build from the official author kit (github.com/cvpr-org/author-kit), current year's branch, unmodified.

The Compute Reporting Form

New in the 2026 cycle: every submission carried a CRF. Only Section 1 (hardware) and Section 5 (verification) were mandatory — about five minutes of work — and a documented opt-out path existed via the comments field for proprietary or unrecorded compute. Fill the mandatory sections early; do not let a five-minute form become a deadline-night blocker, and do not fabricate GPU-hour numbers to look either frugal or mighty.

Anonymity and the external-link ban

CVPR is double-blind with two venue-specific wrinkles. First, arXiv posting is not an anonymity violation — you may have a preprint up, and reviewers are told not to hunt for it. Second, external links are banned when they expand content or subvert review: an anonymous-looking project page, a Google Drive of extra results, or a demo URL can breach anonymity, the media embargo, or the length limit all at once. Everything reviewers need must live in the PDF and the uploaded supplement.

# Mechanical sweep on the final build, ten minutes before upload
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com|drive\.google|project page|our (prior|previous) work' | head
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'     # identity in metadata
grep -rn 'vspace\|\\addtolength\|geometry' main.tex        # style-tampering tells
pdftotext paper.pdf - | awk 'END{print NR" lines extracted"}'   # sanity: text present, not raster

Dual submission and the media embargo

By submitting you attest that no substantially similar paper is under review at another conference or workshop during the defined review period (Nov 13, 2025 – Feb 20, 2026 in the 2026 cycle). Two verified carve-outs: prior papers of four pages or fewer do not trigger the rule, and GitHub documents are not publications. Separately, papers under review are embargoed from proactive media discussion until acceptance — a violation can remove the paper from the proceedings. A journalist writing about your arXiv preprint without your involvement is not a violation; you pitching the story is.

Reviewer duty is part of submitting

Submitting authors are enrolled into the reviewer pool. This is not symbolic: papers authored by a reviewer who blows review deadlines or files highly irresponsible reviews can be desk-rejected wholesale at PC discretion. Before the deadline, decide which coauthors will absorb December–January reviewing load and calendar it.

Desk-reject triage

Finding	Severity	Recoverable?
Coauthor without a valid OpenReview profile at abstract deadline	Desk reject	Only before Nov 6
Page 9 contains anything besides references	Rejected without review	Only before the paper deadline
Style file modified / margins compressed	Rejected without review	Fix and rebuild
Identity leak (metadata, acknowledgements, linked repo)	Desk reject	Sweep before upload
External link expanding content	Policy violation	Delete; move content into supplement
CRF missing	Incomplete submission	Complete Sections 1 and 5
Same work under review elsewhere in the window	Administrative rejection	Withdraw one venue first
Assigned coauthor review never delivered (January)	All their papers at risk	Deliver the reviews

OpenReview form fields worth drafting early

The PDF gets the rehearsals; the form causes the midnight surprises. Draft these a day ahead: the abstract field (verbatim from the PDF — reviewers bid on it), subject areas (chosen for reviewer routing, not maximal coverage), conflicts (every coauthor's domain conflicts, checked against the institution list), and the author order (frozen — post-deadline author changes are a chairs-level exception, not an edit).

Final 72 hours, in order

1. Freeze the 8-page body; late edits go to the supplement queue, not the PDF.
2. Rebuild from a clean checkout of the official kit and verify no local style patches leaked in.
3. Run the mechanical sweep above; treat every hit as a blocker.
4. Complete the OpenReview form fields and CRF a full day early; the abstract field must match the PDF verbatim because reviewers bid on it.
5. Upload, re-download, and read your own submission cold — including checking that figures render at print zoom, since reviewers judge qualitative results visually.

Reverify each cycle

• All three deadlines and whether abstract registration exists in the current cycle.
• The page cap and whether references-only extra pages still apply.
• CRF existence, mandatory sections, and opt-out wording.
• Dual-submission window definition and the ≤4-page carve-out.
• Supplementary size/format caps (not fetchable for 2026 — 待核实).

Output format

[CVPR submission] ready / blocked / at-risk
[Profiles] all coauthors valid on OpenReview: yes/no
[Format] pages used (of 8 incl. figures/tables) · refs-only overflow ok
[CRF] mandatory sections complete: yes/no
[Anonymity/links] clean / violations: <list>
[Duty plan] reviewing coauthors named: yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered blockers>