Acceptance rate statistics for publications in graphics/interaction/vision
2008-01-15 23:26
393 查看
图形图像方面国际会议的影响统计
The numbers were collected from many sources - conference proceedings prefaces, journal reports on conferences, Google search, and so on. There is no guarantee of correctness, yet, when possible, I was trying to double check the numbers from different sources. In cases of different sources claiming different rates, you can see different numbers in brackets. The difference can come e.g. from including or not of short papers.
When assessing acceptance rates, bear in mind that the numbers are skewed by self-selection - the authors will usually submit their work to more selective venues only if they think that they can have some chance of being accepted.
Please, let me know (mail), if you have some additional statistics, or if you see some mistakes.
Many thanks to all contributors.
Information on journals (impact factor + number of published articles)
More conference statistics on :
Systems and networking by Kevin C. Almeroth
Software engineering by Tao Xie
Databases by Peter Apers
ACM SIGGRAPH (International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques)
Eurographics (The Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics)
IEEE Virtual Reality
Graphics Interface
ACM VRAI (Virtual Reality and its Application in Industry)
ACM (SIGGRAPH) Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (and Games)
ACM CHI (Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems)
ACM UIST (Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology)
Vision
CVPR (IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)
ICCV/ECCV (IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision / European Conference on Computer Vision)
NIPS (Neural Information Processing Systems)
The numbers were collected from many sources - conference proceedings prefaces, journal reports on conferences, Google search, and so on. There is no guarantee of correctness, yet, when possible, I was trying to double check the numbers from different sources. In cases of different sources claiming different rates, you can see different numbers in brackets. The difference can come e.g. from including or not of short papers.
When assessing acceptance rates, bear in mind that the numbers are skewed by self-selection - the authors will usually submit their work to more selective venues only if they think that they can have some chance of being accepted.
Please, let me know (mail), if you have some additional statistics, or if you see some mistakes.
Many thanks to all contributors.
Information on journals (impact factor + number of published articles)
More conference statistics on :
Systems and networking by Kevin C. Almeroth
Software engineering by Tao Xie
Databases by Peter Apers
Computer graphics
ACM SIGGRAPH (International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
SIGGRAPH 2004 | 83 | 478 | 17.4% |
SIGGRAPH 2003 | 81 | 424 | 19 % |
SIGGRAPH 2002 | 67 | 358 | 18.72 % |
SIGGRAPH 2001 | 65 | 300 | 21.7 % |
SIGGRAPH 2000 | 59 | 304 | 19.4 % |
SIGGRAPH 1999 | 52 | 320 | 16.3 % |
SIGGRAPH 1998 | 45 | 303 | 14.9 % |
SIGGRAPH 1997 | 48 | 265 | 18.1 % |
SIGGRAPH 1996 | 52 | 247 | 21 % |
SIGGRAPH 1995 | 56 | 257 | 21.8 % |
SIGGRAPH 1994 | 57 | 242 | 23.6 % |
SIGGRAPH 1993 | 46 | 225 | 20.4 % |
SIGGRAPH 1992 | 45 | 213 | 21.1 % |
SIGGRAPH 1990 | 43 | 210 | 20.5 % |
SIGGRAPH 1989 | 38 | 190 | 20 % |
SIGGRAPH 1988 | 34 | 161 | 21.1 % |
SIGGRAPH 1987 | 33 | 140 | 23.6 % |
SIGGRAPH 1985 | 35 | 175 | 20 % |
SIGGRAPH 1984 | 41 | 118 | 34.7 % |
SIGGRAPH 1981 | 38 | 132 | 28.8 % |
SIGGRAPH 1980 | 52 | 140 | 37.1 % |
SIGGRAPH 1979 | 43 | 110 | 39.1 % |
SIGGRAPH 1978 | 64 | 120 | 53.3 % |
Eurographics (The Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
EG 2005 | (STAR 6) | (STAR 22) | (STAR 27.3%) |
EG 2004 | 44 | 243 | 18.1 % |
EG 2003 | 48 | 221 | 21.7 % |
EG 2002 | 42 | 233 | 18 % |
EG 2001 | 54 | 174 | 31 % |
EG 2000 | 52 | 138 | 37.6 % |
EG 1999 | 37 | 152 | 24.3 % |
EG 1998 | 35 | 101 | 34.7 % |
ACM Multimedia
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
ACM Multimedia 2004 | 17 % | ||
ACM Multimedia 2003 | 20 % | ||
ACM Multimedia 2002 | 18 % | ||
ACM Multimedia 2001 | 45 | 280 | 16% (35 % ???) |
ACM Multimedia 2000 | 36 | 214 | 16.8 % (27 % ???) |
ACM Multimedia 1997 | 39 | 142 | 27.5 % |
IEEE Virtual Reality
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
IEEE VR 2004 | 26 | 128 | 20.3 % |
IEEE VR 2001 | 33 | 110 | 30 % |
IEEE Visualization
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
IEEE Visualization 2005 | 88 | 268 | 32.8 % |
IEEE Visualization 2004 | 46 | 167 | 27.5 % |
IEEE Visualization 2003 | 63 | 192 | 32.8 % |
IEEE Visualization 2002 | 58 | 172 | 33.7 % |
IEEE Visualization 2001 | 51 | 152 | 33.6 % |
IEEE Visualization 2000 | 52 | 151 | 34.4 % |
IEEE Visualization 1999 | 47 | 129 | 36.4 % |
IEEE Visualization 1998 | 50 | 118 | 42.4 % |
IEEE Visualization 1997 | 44 | 170 | 25.9 % |
IEEE Visualization 1996 | 43 | 101 | 42.6 % |
IEEE Visualization 1995 | 41 | 102 | 40.2 % |
IEEE Visualization 1994 | 41 | 91 | 45.1 % |
Graphics Interface
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
GI 2003 | 32 | 96 | 33 % |
GI 2002 | 25 | 96 | 26% |
GI 2001 | 48 % ??? | ||
GI 2000 | 28 % ??? | ||
GI 1992 | 29 % |
Computer Animation (and Social Agents)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
CASA 2004 | ~33 (+40) | 152 | ~22 % (48 %) |
CA 2002 | 15 (+18) | 48 | 31 % (68.8 %) |
CA 1999 | 22 | ||
CA 1997 | 17 |
Computer Graphics International
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
CGI in general | ~ 40 % | ||
CGI 2001 | 34 | 64 | 53.1 % |
CGI 2000 | 30 | 92 | 32.6 % |
Pacific Graphics
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
PG 2005 | 102 (37 regular papers + 65 posters) | 267 | 38.2% (13.9 % papers + 24.3 % posters) |
PG 2004 | 25 % ??? | ||
PG 2003 | 36 | 182 | 19.8 % |
PG 2001 | 41 | 112 | 37 % |
ACM VRAI (Virtual Reality and its Application in Industry)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
VRAI 2002 | 66 | 165 | 40 % |
ACM (SIGGRAPH) Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (and Games)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
I3D 2005 | 26 | 95 | 27.4 % |
I3D 2003 | 26 | 102 | 26.5 % |
I3D 2001 | 33 | 100 | 33 % |
I3D 1999 | 31 % ??? | ||
I3D 1995 | 34.4 % ??? | ||
I3D 1992 | 24 | 69 | 34.8 % (43.5 % ???) |
I3D 1990 | 24 | 82 | 29.3 % |
EGCAS (Eurographics Workshop on Animation and Simulation)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
EGCAS 2001 | 16 | 41 | 39 % |
EGCAS 1999 | 20 | 34 | 58.8 % |
EGCAS 1998 | 8 | ||
EGCAS 1997 | 12 | ||
EGCAS 1996 | 14 | 31 | 45.2 % |
EGCAS 1995 | 16 |
ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
SCA 2004 | 37 | 120 | 30.8% |
SCA 2003 | 38 (23+15) | 101 | 37.6% |
SCA 2002 | 22 | 53 | 41.5 % |
EGVE (Eurographics Workshop on Virtual Environments)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
EGVE 2003 | 34 | 75 | 45 % |
EGVE 1999 | 18 | 31 | 58 % |
EGVE 1996 | 19 |
EGWR/EGSR (Eurographics Workshop/Symposium on Rendering)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
EGSR 2005 | 31 | 93 | 33.3 % |
EGSR 2004 | 40 % ??? | ||
EGSR 2003 | 37 % ??? | ||
EGWR 2002 | 29 | 112 | 25.9 % |
EGWR 2001 | 29 | 74 | 39.2 % |
EGWR 1995 | 31 | 68 | 45.6 % |
NPAR (International Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
NPAR 2002 | 18 | 40 | 45 % |
NPAR 2000 | 13 | 27 | 48.1 % |
Graphics Hardware (ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Workshop)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
GH 2004 | 14 | 43 | 32.6 % |
GH 2003 | 13 | 39 | 33.3 % |
GH 2002 | 14 | 32 | 43.8 % |
GH 2001 | 14 | 29 | 48.3 % |
GH 2000 | 14 | ||
GH 1999 | 12 | ||
GH 1998 | 16 | ||
GH 1997 | 15 |
Human computer interaction
ACM CHI (Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
CHI 2004 | 93 | 572 | 16 % |
CHI 2003 | 16 % | ||
CHI 2002 | 61 | 409 | 15 % |
CHI 2000 | 22 % | ||
CHI 1999 | 55 | 237 | 23 % |
ACM UIST (Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
UIST 2001 | 19 % ??? | ||
UIST 2000 | 26 % |
Vision
CVPR (IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
CVPR 2004 | ~200 | ~1200 | ~17 % |
CVPR 2003 | 209 (149 poster + 60 oral) | 905 | 23.1% (16.5 % posters + 6.6 % oral presentations) |
CVPR 2001 | 273 (195 poster + 78 oral) | 920 | 30 % (22 % posters + 8% oral presentations) |
CVPR 2000 | 220 (154 poster + 66 oral) | 466 | 47% (33 % posters + 14.2 % oral presentations) |
CVPR 1998 | (42 oral) | 453 | (9 % oral presentations) |
CVPR 1997 | (62 oral) | 544 | (11.4 % oral presentations) |
ICCV/ECCV (IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision / European Conference on Computer Vision)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
ECCV 2004 | 190 (149 poster + 41 oral) | 555 | 34.2 % (26.8% posters + 7.4 % oral presentations) |
ICCV 2003 | 199 (156 poster + 43 oral) | 960 | 20.7 % (16.2 % posters + 4.5 % oral presentations) |
ECCV 2002 | 226 (181 poster + 45 oral) | ~600 | ~37.7 % (30.2 % posters + 7.5 % oral presentations) |
ICCV 2001 | 34 % | ||
ECCV 2000 | 116 | 266 | 43.6 % |
ICCV 1999 | 31 % | ||
ECCV 1998 | 112 (70 poster + 42 oral) | 223 | 50 % (31 % posters + 19 % oral presentations) |
ICCV 1995 | 26 % |
NIPS (Neural Information Processing Systems)
Name & year | Accepted | Submitted | Acceptance |
NIPS 2003 | 198 | 717 | 27.6 % |
相关文章推荐
- Reading Lists for Advanced Computer Vision in 2009 and 2010
- Another List for Advanced Topics in Computer Vision in 2010
- Another List for Advanced Topics in Computer Vision in 2010
- METHODS OF AND APPARATUS FOR USING TEXTURES IN GRAPHICS PROCESSING SYSTEMS
- Reading Lists for Advanced Computer Vision in 2009 and 2010
- Suggested Papers for 16-721: Learning-based Methods in Vision
- ArcGIS for SilverLight之FindGraphicsInHostCoordinates
- Reading Lists for Advanced Computer Vision in 2009 and 2010
- Another List for Advanced Topics in Computer Vision in 2010
- using learning rate schedules for deep learning models in python with keras
- 论文 NaturalScene Statistics Account for the Representation of Scene Categoriesin Human Visual Cortex
- 微软的一篇ctr预估的论文:Web-Scale Bayesian Click-Through Rate Prediction for Sponsored Search Advertising in Microsoft’s Bing Search Engine。
- VOA 2009/11/07 IN THE NEWS - A Second Term for Karzai; US Jobless Rate at 10.2%
- 慎用 JS 中的 for (var index in items) 循环数组项
- Repeated column in mapping for entity:should be mapped with insert="false" update="false"
- IMPLEMENTING A CNN FOR TEXT CLASSIFICATION IN TENSORFLOW
- js中的循环遍历数组中的元素,ES6(for-of)、ES5(forEach、for-in)、通用(for(i=0;i<length;i++))
- How to Enable SQL_TRACE for Another Session or in MTS Using Oradebug(文档 ID 1058210.6)
- python练习-for in str
- 论文阅读笔记:Threat of Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning in Computer Vision: A Survey