ECCV Reproducibility

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.

The two-year checkability horizon

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.

Recipe ledger (goes in paper or supplement, never nowhere)

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

Foundation-model era pinning

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.

Variance honesty on benchmark deltas

• A +0.3 mAP or +0.2 mIoU headline delta needs seed evidence: report mean ± std over ≥3 seeds for your method and your strongest baseline, or scope the claim down.
• State which numbers are your re-runs versus quoted from prior papers — mixed provenance inside one table is a classic silent irreproducibility.
• If full re-training is too expensive to repeat, say so and report seeds on the cheapest deciding component (e.g., the head, not the backbone).

Split the story across the 14 pages and the supplement

• Body: enough recipe to judge plausibility — schedule summary, data versions, compute order-of-magnitude.
• Supplement: the full ledger, per-experiment configs, the pinned-substrate block, and negative-result notes ("we tried X at lr=1e-3, diverged").
• Code archive: configs as files, not prose; the paper should never be the only serialization of a hyperparameter.

Honest-failure statement

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.

Output format

[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>