Kunal Swami

Thrilled to share that our paper, "Insert In Style (IIS)", has been accepted to ACM Multimedia (ACMMM) 2026! IIS is a novel framework and training paradigm designed for localized, style-aware object composition. Read our paper here: arxiv.org/pdf/2511.15197

@4n5hh_ @HaiyuWu1 @lucyjcai Can you please elaborate why no?

@HaiyuWu1 @lucyjcai As someone working on a frontier one I'd say noo Absolutely No

Are VLAs dead?

@sjtuytc @CSProfKGD Curious how it turned out that way. Were there some Borderline Accept reviewers who had genuine concerns?

@CSProfKGD Well mine was rejected last time with all positive ratings. If this happens once, you will never be feeling safe before the decision.

The few #CVPR2026 authors sitting on 3 Accept ratings after the initial reviews.

@aluyui @CVPR Definitely good in the sense that reviewers updated their final rating post rebuttal 😉

@kunalswami189 @CVPR Oh okay, I've just checked and for me all three reviews had a modified date & time but I don't know if that's a good or bad sign

@CVPR Does not pariticipating in discussion and/or not updating final review (rating and justification) within deadline come under irresponsible reviewing? 1. I have this case for 1 paper in my review stack of 4. 2. For my own paper, only 1/3 reviewer has udpate the review.

@csgaobb But I wish he had done it earlier and before the deadline, there are points worth discussing and scope to build some consensus.

@csgaobb Same scenario in 1/4 paper I am reviewing. Fortunately, couple of hours back, 1 reviewer referred to my posted discussion and has submitted a properly justified final rating.

Why can’t CVPR reviewers see AC names? It’s frustrating when ACs don’t drive the discussion. As a reviewer, I’ve tried to initiate, but the silence is deafening. Reaching a consensus is vital, especially for those borderline papers. #CVPR2026 #AcademicTwitter

@CSProfKGD In 1/4 paper I am reviewing, 1 reviewer has not submitted the final rating & justification yet (neither participated in discussion). Also, for my own paper, only 1/3 reviewer has updated the review post rebuttal. What happens in such cases? Everything on AC?

#CVPR2026 reviewer discussions are complete and recommendations are in. Decision time now begins, as area chairs meet over the next week to discuss preliminary decisions and make final calls. Good luck!

@aluyui @CVPR You can see the "modified date & time" for each review. For my paper, only one review was modified two days back, other two reviews have same timestamp as before the rebuttal (or official review release timestamp).

@kunalswami189 @CVPR How do you know for your own paper?

@petersamahaa @iamwaynechi Sorry, what is an industrial PhD?

@iamwaynechi I believe doing an industrial PhD is the best of both words. You've got the flexibility, money and the compute

I did industry research and then chose to return for a CS PhD at CMU. A few thoughts on why I chose to do a PhD. In industry research, it’s hard to work on the same problem for long. Timelines change and product incentives shift. As a result, it’s difficult to really develop deep insights into one particular area of research. During a PhD, you can plan out multiple years of research without worrying about external factors. You want to work on diffusion for five years? Simply go do it. This is perhaps the number one reason to do a PhD. Second, industry typically gives you little control over collaborators. It’s difficult to know who you’re going to work with and, once you’re there, you can’t really pick and choose either. At some point, everyone has worked with someone they absolutely do not want to work with. In a PhD, the talent density is incredibly high. I’ve had the opposite problem where I simply want to work with too many people. But, if you do encounter someone you don’t want to work with… simply don’t work with them. Lastly, let’s say you do work for a top-lab where you’re surrounded by brilliant people and everyone has the same long term vision. Guess what… almost everybody around you has a PhD. Not only does this mean you have to prove you are at a PhD level, but mentally it’s annoying knowing that everyone else has a PhD and you don’t. I firmly believe that you can succeed without a PhD, but it’s definitely an uphill battle. Of course, there are many downsides to doing a PhD, most notably money and compute (aka money). Nowadays, a pattern I’ve seen work very well is 2-3 years in industry before the PhD, just to provide yourself some money and comparison. Everyone I know who has done this has been very successful. At the end of the day, the PhD is about buying time and freedom of choice. Whether that’s worth it is up to you.

@SattlerTorsten @PaulGavrikov @eccvconf Sorry if it's well known, but why ECCV unlike CVPR, ICCV does not publish in IEEE?

@PaulGavrikov @eccvconf I am sure the ECCV 2024 program chairs are open to changes if you manage to convince Springer to change their templates.

For @eccvconf #ECCV2026 I propose to further shrink the paper format. We are wasting too much digital paper! Look how beautiful the template is if we cut all measurements in half.

@SattlerTorsten @CVPR I also faced this problem 😕 and I just uploaded my paper PDF here in a hurry.

@CVPR I am confused: are the compute forms due with the main paper submission? I can’t save edits to a full submission without uploading the compute forms.

Glad to know that I am recognized as @CVPR 2025 Outstanding Reviewer! Reviewing papers not only helps develop critical thinking but it is extremely satisfying to know that my service to the community is recognized as outstanding :)!

@CVPR Glad to see my name! Will there be an email? Last time when I got this in CVPR 2023, it was announced via email, that was really encouraging :)!

Behind every great conference is a team of dedicated reviewers. Congratulations to this year’s #CVPR2025 Outstanding Reviewers! #all-outstanding-reviewer" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">cvpr.thecvf.com/Conferences/20…

The bitter lesson Yann learned from Llama 4

@CSProfKGD My R2 made this comment in the justification, "the paper is not reaching the standard of innovation at @CVPR. It's better to re-submit it to other venues". 🤔

If you’re going to flag a missing reference to an arXiv paper published after the #CVPR2025 submission deadline as a major weakness, could you also provide access to one of these? 👇

@jon_barron @thiemoall Revealing names during the discussion can lead to authority bias?

@thiemoall Yeah this is a good one. They should make them visible to other reviewers during the discussion phase too though. Neurips did this once in like 2014 and it really changed the dynamics for the better.

Love this new CVPR 2025 policy. "Highly irresponsible reviews will trigger an evaluation process by the PCs which could result in the desk rejection of the papers submitted by the reviewer who submitted the review." Shitty LLM "reviewers": we're bringing the hammer down.

@CSProfKGD R1, R2, R3, all in my case 🥲

Reviewer 2 finalizes their review with their final justification reading “I thank the authors for addressing my concerns but I will keep my initial rating of reject.”

@rohan99pandey @danish037 @NirantK @unironictechbro 2. "Best-selling author": Has 3 reviews on Amazon, & a simple Google search does not back this claim. Is this click-bait or clear scam?

@rohan99pandey @danish037 @NirantK 1/n I think it is important to call out such misinformation & BS as it is done by @unironictechbro, instead of calling it as "click-bait"! Fine, the guy has made contributions, totally respect that, but the claims are BS and scammy: 1. "Endorsed by Dr. Andrew Ng"

I have been meaning to call out all the bullsh*t that @NirantK is all about! This thread does a good job. This “Top 5 GenAI scientist” has never contributed anything to science! No one would even recognize him if he were to attend a serious scientific conference.