This skill provides comprehensive guidance for positioning computer graphics, visualization, and geometric computing manuscripts for the Pacific Graphics conference. It covers conference fit evaluation, necessary framing adjustments, evidence bar construction, and strategic advice for maximizing submission success in the Asia-Pacific visual computing domain. Ideal for authors needing to refine their paper's focus for a selective CS venue.
Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics) is a top computer-science conference venue for graphics, visualization, geometric computing, rendering, animation, and Asia-Pacific visual computing. It rewards a visual computing paper with specialist novelty and clear comparative demonstrations. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
The author names Pacific Graphics / Pacific Graphics as the target venue.
A manuscript in graphics needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to Pacific Graphics's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
Reviewer lens: Treat Pacific Graphics as a focused Asia-Pacific visual computing venue. A good submission foregrounds graphics technique, comparative visuals, and regional/international visual-computing relevance, not only broad multimedia or HCI claims.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: graphics, visualization, geometric computing, rendering, animation, and Asia-Pacific visual computing.
Official anchor domain: pg2026.nccu.edu.tw. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in computer
graphics and the author can say why Pacific Graphics reviewers are the primary audience, not
merely a convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: acm-siggraph-asia (SIGGRAPH Asia),
eurographics (Eurographics), acm-siggraph-symposium-on-interactive-3d-graphics-and-games
(I3D), international-conference-on-advanced-visual-interfaces (AVI). Break ties by
contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from
pg2026.nccu.edu.tw.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
What Pacific Graphics is. The Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications — the Asia-Pacific graphics venue; archival papers in Computer Graphics Forum (CGF).
vs Eurographics. Eurographics is the European CGF conference; same journal pipeline, different region and cycle.
vs SIGGRAPH Asia. SIGGRAPH Asia publishes in ACM TOG and is larger; PG is the CGF-track Asia-Pacific venue.
Pacific Graphics-specific routing detail
Prefer Pacific Graphics when the manuscript is a focused Asia-Pacific visual-computing contribution with CGF-style evidence in graphics, rendering, geometry, visualization, or animation.
Route to Eurographics for the European CGF community, to SIGGRAPH Asia for the ACM TOG flagship Asia-Pacific cycle, and to vision venues when recognition benchmarks dominate.
Pacific Graphics evidence should make the visual-computing technique, comparative demonstrations, and regional/community fit explicit without framing the venue as fallback.
Method & evidence bar
Use current vision baselines, strong ablations, dataset-specific protocols, and qualitative examples that reveal failure modes.
Keep the anonymous submission self-contained; external material should follow the current-cycle policy exactly.
For generated or foundation-model outputs, show robustness, data provenance, and evaluation beyond cherry-picked visuals.
For Pacific Graphics, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a visual computing paper with specialist novelty and clear comparative demonstrations.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
Lead with the visual problem and the technical insight; then prove it across datasets, metrics, and ablations.
Make figures do work: pipeline, qualitative wins/failures, and compact quantitative comparisons.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at Pacific Graphics, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle computer graphics papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
A thin architecture tweak with marginal gains and no analysis.
Using non-comparable baselines, private data splits, or hidden external links that violate review policy.
Ethics, consent, or biometric/medical claims handled as boilerplate rather than as real constraints.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving Pacific Graphics reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses Pacific Graphics's bar, compare against computer-vision-and-pattern-recognition / international-conference-on-computer-vision / european-conference-on-computer-vision / winter-conference-on-applications-of-computer-vision. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Pacific Graphics (Pacific Graphics)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
