Use when planning the end-to-end ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) campaign calendar — from thematic-area scoping and track choice, through the April OpenReview abstract/paper/supplement chain, the June anonymous rebuttal, the July decision, the August camera-ready, and the November presentation in Rio, with the right skill invoked at each stage.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this to run an ACM Multimedia submission as a scheduled campaign rather than a deadline scramble. The SIGMM calendar has a long gap between the April submission chain and the July decision, so the work clusters at the front and the back.
| Phase | 2026 date | What must be true | Skill |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope + track choice | pre-March | Contribution is cross-modal; thematic area and track chosen | acmmm-topic-selection |
| Draft + evidence | March | First page leads with the multimedia claim; ablations planned | acmmm-writing-style, acmmm-experiments |
| Abstract | Mar 25 | Abstract registered in OpenReview | acmmm-submission |
| Paper | Apr 1 | 6–8 sigconf pages, anonymous, final PDF | acmmm-submission |
| Supplement | Apr 8 | Media/appendix package, anonymous, plays | acmmm-supplementary |
| Rebuttal | ~Jun 4 | Anonymous response, small confirmatory results | acmmm-author-response |
| Notification | ~early Jul | Decision + tier | acmmm-review-process |
| Camera-ready | ~Aug 6 | De-anonymized ACM version, artifact released | acmmm-camera-ready |
| Conference | Nov 10–14 | Registered; media-ready talk/poster | acmmm-camera-ready |
Treat these dates as the 2026 snapshot; reopen the current site each cycle. Note the 2026 notification date was listed inconsistently (July 7 on the CFP vs. July 9 elsewhere).
The April chain is unforgiving because three deadlines land in eight days. Do the slow work early:
T-14d: freeze claims; media assets rendering from scripts
T-7d: body fits 6-8 sigconf pages; references on overflow pages only
Mar 25: abstract registered (do not miss the earliest deadline)
Apr 1: paper PDF final, anonymous, metadata-clean
Apr 8: supplement packaged, anonymous, media plays for a stranger
Between April and June, prepare the confirmatory experiments a reviewer is likely to ask for (the missing baseline, the extra ablation) so the June rebuttal is a matter of reporting results, not scrambling to run them.
| Risk | Where it bites | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Missing the abstract deadline | Mar 25 forecloses the paper | Register the abstract days early |
| Wrong track blinding | Desk reject | Confirm the track call before formatting |
| Fusion not shown to matter | Reviews / rebuttal | Run the leave-one-modality-out ablation pre-submission |
| User study not recruited in time | Perceptual claim unbacked | Start recruiting before April |
| Broken anonymous media link | Lost evidence in review | Test the mirror from a clean machine |
| Rio travel/visa delay | Cannot present | Start visa paperwork at acceptance |
An ACM MM rejection is not the end of the work. Match the reviews to the next move: a retrieval-leaning paper can go to ICMR; a systems-leaning one to MMSys; a regionally scoped or earlier-stage result to ACM Multimedia Asia or a workshop; a matured version to the ACM TOMM journal or next year's ACM MM. Fix the decisive critique — usually the cross-modal-significance one — before resubmitting anywhere.
[Current phase] <scope/draft/abstract/paper/supplement/rebuttal/decision/camera-ready/conference>
[On track?] yes / at-risk: <what slips>
[Next deadline] <date + deliverable>
[Active skill] <which skill to run now>
[Risks] <ordered>
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.