| name | siggraph-writing-style |
| description | Use when structuring or revising a SIGGRAPH / TOG technical paper, covering the teaser figure, a results-first first page, the graphics contribution framing (technique + quality/performance), comparison-driven evaluation, honest limitations, and the acmart 7-page discipline for the conference track. |
SIGGRAPH Writing Style
A SIGGRAPH paper earns acceptance by making a graphics contribution legible on the first page
and showing its results, not merely describing them. The reader is a domain expert who will
form an opinion from your teaser figure and results video before finishing the abstract. This
skill builds the SIGGRAPH first-page arc and the body discipline the acmart budget enforces.
Anchor format facts to resources/official-source-map.md.
The SIGGRAPH first-page arc
problem a graphics practitioner recognizes -> why prior methods fall short (quality, speed,
generality, or robustness) -> our technique in one sentence -> the result shown (teaser) -> what it
enables. All of it visible on page one, with the teaser figure doing half the work.
- Lead with the visual/temporal problem: a rendering that is too slow or too noisy, a simulation
that is unstable, a geometry operation that fails on real meshes. Not "deep learning has
transformed graphics."
- State the contribution as a method plus a measurable gain — "Nx faster at equal quality,"
"converges where prior work diverges," "handles inputs prior methods cannot." A method with no
quality/performance axis to move is not yet a SIGGRAPH contribution.
- The teaser must show the best result on a recognizable case and, ideally, a side-by-side with
the strongest baseline. It is the single most-read object in the paper.
The teaser figure carries the paper
Spend disproportionate effort here:
- One glance should convey what problem, what input, what output, how much better.
- Prefer a real, hard scene over a toy; reviewers distrust teasers that only work on the easy case.
- If the contribution is temporal, the teaser points at the video ("see supplemental video") — but
the still must still stand alone.
Body structure (conference/dual-track: <= 7 pages)
A workable graphics-paper skeleton:
- Introduction — the first-page arc above; contributions as a short bulleted list.
- Related work — positioned by what prior methods cannot do that you can (see
siggraph-related-work), not a chronological survey.
- Method — the technique, with the math and algorithm a reader needs to reimplement; push
long derivations to the supplemental appendix.
- Results — comparisons, ablations, timings, and quality metrics (see
siggraph-experiments),
each figure earning its space against the page budget.
- Limitations — honest failure cases, shown not hidden; this builds credibility here.
- Conclusion — one paragraph; no over-signposting.
Page-budget discipline (acmart)
- The conference-track body is <= 7 pages excluding references and up to two figures-only pages.
Every figure competes with text for that space — cut a figure that does not change a reader's
belief.
- Move derivations, parameter tables, and network architecture details to the supplemental
appendix. The body carries the argument and the decisive results; the supplemental carries depth.
- Do not shrink fonts or edit the
acmart class to recover space — that is a mechanical reject.
Recover space by cutting, not by tampering.
Voice and honesty
- Show, then claim. "Our method removes the flicker (Fig. 4, video 0:30)" beats "our method is
temporally coherent." Graphics reviewers believe pixels, not adjectives.
- Quantify every comparison with a metric and equal conditions; a qualitative "looks better"
invites the reviewer to disagree.
- Name limitations before the reviewer does. A shown failure case with an explanation is far
stronger than a concealed one the reviewer discovers in your video.
- Timings are claims — report them with hardware, resolution, and settings, or do not make
them.
Anti-patterns
- A method paper with no comparison to the obvious prior work — the fastest path to reject.
- A teaser that only works on the easy input.
- Prose that describes results the figures/video do not actually show.
- Over-length body recovered by font/margin tampering.
- Limitations reduced to a boilerplate sentence, or omitted entirely.
Output format
[First page] graphics problem + inadequacy + technique + teaser + payoff all present? yes/no
[Teaser] shows best result on a recognizable case, ideally vs baseline? yes/no
[Contribution] method + measurable quality/performance gain stated? yes/no
[Body budget] conference-track <=7 pages, derivations moved to appendix? yes/no
[Honesty] comparisons quantified + limitations shown (not hidden)? yes/no
[Revision queue] <ordered>
