Use this before the ECCV paper freeze. ECCV publishes through Springer LNCS with no standing mandatory reproducibility checklist across cycles (whether the current cycle adds one: 待核实 against the live author guidelines), so the reproducibility bar is enforced socially: by reviewers who try to match your numbers, and by the two-year gap before you could publish a correction at the same venue.
A CVPR paper's errors are challenged within a year; an ECCV paper sits as the venue's latest word on the topic until the next even year. Write the paper so a lab starting from only the PDF plus supplement in 2027 can rebuild the result — that is the horizon reviewers implicitly price in.
| Ingredient | Minimum disclosure | Common ECCV-draft omission |
|---|---|---|
| Training schedule | Optimizer, LR schedule, epochs/iterations, batch size, augmentations | Augmentation list "standard" with no definition |
| Initialization | Pretrained checkpoint identity + source | "ImageNet-pretrained" without which checkpoint |
| Data | Dataset version, split definition, filtering rules | Custom val split described only as "held out" |
| Evaluation | Metric implementation source, input resolution, TTA on/off | Resolution mismatch between method and baselines |
| Compute | GPU type, count, wall-clock, total runs behind the paper | Only the final run's cost reported |
Modern ECCV pipelines sit on moving substrates. Pin all of them by exact identity, because "CLIP features" is not reproducible information:
# pinned-substrate block for the supplement
backbone: dinov2-vitl14, weights sha256:<hash>, source: <url>
vlm: <model name + exact release tag>, accessed 2026-02
sam_variant: <checkpoint id>
inference: fp16, single-crop, resolution 518x518
api_models: none # if any API model is used, record date + version string
An API-served model that silently updates invalidates comparisons; record access dates and version strings, and prefer frozen open-weight substrates for headline tables.
One paragraph reviewers reward at this venue: name the regime where the method breaks (small objects, low light, out-of-distribution categories), with a pointer to a supplement figure showing it. It signals the numbers were probed rather than curated.
[Repro grade] rebuildable-from-paper / rebuildable-with-code / not-rebuildable
[Ledger gaps] <schedule / init / data / eval / compute rows missing>
[Substrate pinning] <unpinned dependency -> exact identity to record>
[Variance status] <headline delta -> seed evidence present?>
[Placement plan] <body vs supplement vs code archive>