# Eccv Related Work > Use when positioning an ECCV submission in the literature — covering the two intervening CVPR/ICCV cycles since the last ECCV, March-deadline concurrent-work conventions, the no-self-repo citation rule, Springer-vs-CVF venue attribution hygiene, and turning a numbered LNCS bibliography into an argument. - Skill: `thedixitjain/eccv-related-work` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/eccv-related-work` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/eccv-related-work/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/eccv-related-work --- # ECCV Related Work Use this when auditing novelty positioning for ECCV. The venue's cadence sets the task: since the previous ECCV, **two CVPRs and one ICCV** have published — for a 2026 submission, that means CVPR 2024, ICCV 2025, and CVPR 2025 (plus early-2026 arXiv) all landed after ECCV 2024. A related-work section that stops at the last even year reads as two years stale. ## Coverage sweep, ordered by reviewer expectation 1. **The direct lineage**: the three to five papers your method visibly descends from, with the mechanism-level difference stated per paper. 2. **The intervening cycles**: CVPR/ICCV work from the odd-year gap that attacks the same task — the in-niche reviewer's first check. 3. **The concurrent band**: arXiv papers within a few months of the March deadline; conventions below. 4. **The classical root**: pre-deep or early-deep work the task descends from — European panels notice (and reward) correct genealogy more than most venues. ## Concurrent-work conventions around a March deadline - Treat unpublished arXiv work from the months near the deadline as concurrent: cite it, mark it "(concurrent)", compare qualitatively if feasible, but reviewers cannot require you to beat it. The exact cutoff convention is per-cycle policy — 待核实 in the current author FAQ. - ECCV 2026's dual-submission rule defined "publication" as peer-reviewed, accepted, and longer than four pages excluding references — arXiv preprints and tech reports did not count as publications, for your eligibility *and* for what you can be scooped by. - Your own prior arXiv posting is legal (not an anonymity violation), but the submission must cite it in third person like a stranger's work, and must **not cite your own public codebase** — that link is treated as an identity leak. ## Venue attribution hygiene ECCV's version of record is **Springer LNCS**, not CVF open access — and vision bibliographies chronically misattribute across the big three. Check each load-bearing citation against the actual proceedings: | Error pattern | Example trap | Check against | |---|---|---| | ECCV paper cited as CVPR/ICCV | SSD and Perceptual Losses are ECCV 2016, not CVPR | SpringerLink `link.springer.com/conference/eccv` | | Sibling paper credited to ECCV | Mask R-CNN is ICCV 2017; ResNet is CVPR 2016 | CVF open access for CVF venues | | arXiv year vs proceedings year | Preprint 2025, proceedings 2026 | dblp entry | | "ECCV" for a workshop paper | ECCV workshop ≠ main conference in LNCS subline | The specific LNCS volume front matter | ## Making numbered citations argue LNCS numeric style hides authorship, so the prose must carry the argument: ```text Weak: "Many works study X [4,9,12,17,21]." Strong: "Two families address X: geometry-based pipelines [4,9] that require per-scene optimization, and feed-forward models [12,17] that trade accuracy for speed; [21] sits between them but assumes calibrated cameras. We remove that assumption." ``` Every citation cluster should end with the sentence that says what *you* do differently — otherwise the cluster is a bibliography, not related work. ## Differentiation stress test Before the freeze, answer in one written sentence each: - Which single existing paper would a hostile reviewer say already does this? - What breaks if that paper's method is run on your exact setting? - Which intervening-cycle paper is closest, and does your experiments section actually contain it as a baseline (`eccv-experiments`)? If question three's answer is "cited but not compared", fix the experiment or pre-empt in text why comparison is impossible — silence is the reject. ## Output format ```text [Coverage status] [Attribution audit] verified venue, errors found> [Anonymity conflicts] [Closest rival] baseline present? / preempted in text?> [Cluster rewrites] argument sentence> ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ECCV-Skills/skills/eccv-related-work/SKILL.md`