Author Guidelines for the British Machine Vision Conference

unclesamnorweiganAI and Robotics

Oct 18, 2013 (3 years and 10 months ago)

85 views

1
00

1
01

1
02

1
03

1
04

1
05

1
06

1
07

1
08

1
09

1
10

1
11

1
12

1
13

1
14

1
15

1
16

1
17

1
18

1
19

1
20

1
21

1
22

1
23

1
24

1
25

1
26

1
27

1
28

1
29

1
30

1
31

1
32

1
33

1
34

1
35

1
36

1
37

1
38

1
39

1
40

1
41

1
42

1
43

1
44

1
45

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES

1





© 2011
. The copyright of this document resides with its authors.

It may be distributed unchanged freely in print or electronic forms.



Abstract

This document demonstrates the format requirements for papers submitted to the
British Machine Vision Conference. The format is designed for easy on
-
screen
reading, and to print well at one or two pages per sheet. Additional features include:
pop
-
up annotations for citations [4, 6]; a margin ruler for reviewing; and a greatly
simplif
ied way of entering multiple authors and institutions.

All authors are encouraged to read this document
, even if you have written
many papers before. As well as a description of the format, the document contains
many instructions relating to formatting pro
blems and errors that are common even in
the work of authors who have written many papers before.

1

Introduction

From 2009, the proceedings of BMVC (the British Machine Vision Conference) will be

published only in electronic form. This document illustrates t
he required paper format, and

includes guidelines on preparation of submissions. Papers which fail to adhere to these

requirements may be rejected at any stage in the review process.

LATEX users should use this template in order to prepare their paper. Use
rs of other

packages should emulate the style and layout of this example. Note that best results will be

achieved using pdflatex, which is available in most modern distributions.

1.1


Paper length: nine pages plus bibliography and title

Papers must be 9 pages
in length, excluding the bibliography. Length is counted from the

bottom of the title on the first page. Therefore, the bibliography should begin eight lines
into

page ten. This is an approximate measure, intended to encourage brevity, but authors
should

k
eep in mind that blatant disregard of this instruction will cause reviewers to
require greater

originality and impact of the submission.
Papers which are clearly
overlength will not be reviewed
. This includes papers where the margins and formatting
are dee
med to have

been significantly altered from those laid down by this style guide. The
reason such papers

will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for supervised
revisions of manuscripts.

The reviewing process cannot determine the suitability of th
e
paper for presentation in nine

pages if it is reviewed in twelve.

The bibliography should begin immediately after the paper text. It may be of any
length,

within reason. It should
not

include annotations, figures, or any other paraphernalia
intended

to
subvert the paper length requirement.

Author Guidelines for the

British Machine Vision Conference

BMVC 2011

Submission # ??

2
00

2
01

2
02

2
03

2
04

2
05

2
06

2
07

2
08

2
09

2
10

2
11

2
12

2
13

2
14

2
15

2
16

2
17

2
18

2
19

2
20

2
21

2
22

2
23

2
24

2
25

2
26

2
27

2
28

2
29

2
30

2
31

2
32

2
33

2
34

2
35

2
36

2
37

2
38

2
39

2
40

2
41

2
42

2
43

2
44

2
45

2

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES








(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure
1
: It is often a good idea for the first figure to attempt to encapsulate the article,
complementing the abstract. This figure illustrates the various print and
on
-
screen layouts
for which this paper format has been optimized: (a) traditional BMVC print format; (b) on
-
screen single
-
column format, or large
-
print paper; (c) full
-
screen two column, or 2
-
up
printing.

1.2

Dual submission

By submitting this manuscript to BM
VC, the authors assert that it has not been previously
published in substantially similar form, and no paper currently under submission to a
conference contains significant overlap with this one. If you are in doubt about the amount
of overlap, cite the du
al submission (as described below), and argue in the body of your
paper why this is a nontrivial advance. A simultaneous journal submission would be
expected to have significant additional material not in the conference paper, and should not
be previously
published, nor in the final acceptance stages. The conference chairs reserve
the right to cancel submission of any paper which is found to violate these conditions. In
particular
,
uncited
dual

submissions will be summarily dealt with.

1.3

Anonymity and blind r
eview

BMVC operates a double
-
blind review process. Your review submission
must not
identify you as the author
. This means, in particular, that the author list should be
replaced by the words “BMVC YYYY Submission # NNN”, where the italics are to
indicate t
he year and the submission number. The provided LATEX command
\
bmvcreviewcopy

does this automatically. In addition, acknowledgements should not
be included in the review copy.

Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind review.
Blind
r
eview does not mean that one must remove citations to one’s own work

in fact it is
often impossible to review a paper unless the previous citations are known and available.

Blind review means that you do not use the words “my” or “our” when citing previou
s
work. That is all. (But see below for techreports)

Saying “this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]” does not say that you are Lucy
Smith, it says that you are building on her work. If you are Smith and Jones, do not say “as
we show in [7]”, say “as Sm
ith and Jones show in [7]” and at the end of the paper, include
reference 7 as you would any other cited work.

An example of a bad paper:

An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.

3
00

3
01

3
02

3
03

3
04

3
05

3
06

3
07

3
08

3
09

3
10

3
11

3
12

3
13

3
14

3
15

3
16

3
17

3
18

3
19

3
20

3
21

3
22

3
23

3
24

3
25

3
26

3
27

3
28

3
29

3
30

3
31

3
32

3
33

3
34

3
35

3
36

3
37

3
38

3
39

3
40

3
41

3
42

3
43

3
44

3
45

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES

3


In this paper we present a performance analysis of our previous paper [1]
,
and show it to be inferior to all previously known methods. Why the
previous paper was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

[1] Removed for blind review

An example of an excellent paper:

An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.

In this paper we present a performance analysis of the paper of Smith
et
al.

[1], and show it to be inferior to all previously known methods. Why the
previous paper was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

[1] Smith, L and Jones, C. “The frobnicata
ble foo filter, a fundamental
contribution to human knowledge”. Nature 381(12), 1
-
213.

If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time, which covers
similar or overlapping material, you will almost certainly need to refer to that subm
ission
in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you or others had previously
published related work. In such cases, include the anonymized parallel submission
[4]

as
additional material and cite it as

[1] Authors. “The frobnicatable foo fi
lter”, ECCV 2006 Submission ID 324,
Supplied as additional material
eccv06.pdf
.

Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be found
elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report. For conference submissions, the paper
must sta
nd on its own, and not
require

the reviewer to go to a techreport for further details.
Thus, you may say in the body of the paper “further details may be found in [5]”. Then
submit the techreport as additional material. Again, you may not assume the review
ers will
read this material.

Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which is
widely known to be restricted to a single institution. For example, let’s say it’s 1969, you
have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander, and you believe that the ICLL’70
aud
ience would like to hear about your solution. The work is a development of your
celebrated 1968 paper entitled “Zero
-
g frobnication: How being the only people in the
world with access to the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties”, by Zeus et
al.

You can handle this paper like any other. Don’t write “We show how to improve our
previous work [Anonymous, 1968]. This time we tested the algorithm on a lunar lander
[name of lander removed for blind review]”. That would be silly, and would immediatel
y
identify the authors. Instead write the following:

We describe a system for zero
-
g frobnication. This system is new because it
handles the following cases: A, B. Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn’t
handle case B properly. Ours handles it by includ
ing a foo term in the bar
integral.

...

The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo lunar lander, and
went all the way to the moon, don’t you know. It displayed the following
behaviours which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...

4
00

4
01

4
02

4
03

4
04

4
05

4
06

4
07

4
08

4
09

4
10

4
11

4
12

4
13

4
14

4
15

4
16

4
17

4
18

4
19

4
20

4
21

4
22

4
23

4
24

4
25

4
26

4
27

4
28

4
29

4
30

4
31

4
32

4
33

4
34

4
35

4
36

4
37

4
38

4
39

4
40

4
41

4
42

4
43

4
44

4
45

4

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES





Figure
2
:
Example of a short caption, which should be centered.

As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention, reads better than the
first version, and do
es not explicitly name you as the authors. A reviewer might think it
likely that the new paper was written by Zeus et
al.
, but cannot make any decision based
on that guess. He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to

solve problem B.

FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK? No. Leave them for the final copy.

1.4

Citations

When citing a multi
-
author paper, you may save space by using “
et alia
”, shortened to “et
al.
” (not “
et. al.
” as “et” is a complete word.) The provided
\
etal

macro

is a useful aide
memoire in this regard. However, use it only when there are three or more authors. Thus,
the following is correct: “ Frobnication has been trendy lately. It was introduced by Alpher
[1], and subsequently developed by Alpher and Fotheringh
am
-
Smythe [2], and Alpher et
al.

[3].”

This is incorrect: “... subsequently developed by Alpher et
al.

[2] ...” because reference
[2] has just two authors. If you use the
\
etal

macro, then you need not worry about
double periods when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher et
al.

We use
natbib
, so citations in random order are nicely sorted: [1, 2, 4, 5]. However,
we don’t use the compress option, as we want each reference to

have its own hyperlink and
popup window.

1.5

Footnotes

Please use footnotes
1

sparingly. Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include
necessary peripheral observations in the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this
sentence). If you wish t
o use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on
which it is referenced. Use Times 8
-
point type, single
-
spaced.




1

This is what a footnote looks like. It often
distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.

5
00

5
01

5
02

5
03

5
04

5
05

5
06

5
07

5
08

5
09

5
10

5
11

5
12

5
13

5
14

5
15

5
16

5
17

5
18

5
19

5
20

5
21

5
22

5
23

5
24

5
25

5
26

5
27

5
28

5
29

5
30

5
31

5
32

5
33

5
34

5
35

5
36

5
37

5
38

5
39

5
40

5
41

5
42

5
43

5
44

5
45

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES

5


Method

Frobnability

Theirs

Frumpy

Yours

Frobbly

Ours

Makes one’s heart Frob


Table
1
:
Results.

Ours is better.

1.6

The ruler

The LATEX style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the version submitted
for review. The ruler is provided in order that reviewers may comment on particular lines
in the paper without circumlocution. If you are pr
eparing a document using a non
-
LATEX
document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to appear on the final
output pages. The presence or absence of the ruler should not change the appearance of
any other content on the page. The camera

ready copy should not contain a ruler. (LATEX
users may remove the [
review
] option from the
\
documentclass

statement.)
Reviewers: note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper


this turns out to be very difficult to do well w
hen the paper contains many figures and
equations, and, when done, looks ugly. Just use fractional references (e.g. this line is
210:5), although in most cases one would expect that the approximate location (210 in the
previous example) will be adequate.

1.7

Mathematics

Please number all of your sections and displayed equations. It is important for readers to be
able to refer to any particular equation. Just because you didn’t refer to it in the text
doesn’t mean some future reader might not need to refer to i
t. It is cumbersome to have to
use circumlocutions like “the equation second from the top of page 3 column 1”. (Note that
the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not an alternative to equation numbers).
All authors will benefit from reading
Mermin’s description [6] of how to write
mathematics.

1.8

References

List and number all bibliographical references in 9
-
point Times, single
-
spaced, at the end
of your paper. When referenced in the text, enclose the citation number in square brackets,
for exam
ple [4]. Where appropriate, include the name(s) of editors of referenced books.

1.9

Color

Color is valuable, and will be visible to readers of the electronic copy. However ensure
that, when printed on a monochrome printer, no important information is lost by t
he
conversion to grayscale.

References

[1]

A. Alpher. Frobnication.
Journal of Foo
, 12(1):234

778, 2002.

[2]

A. Alpher and J. P. N. Fotheringham
-
Smythe. Frobnication revisited.
Journal of Foo
, 13
(1):234

778, 2003.

6
00

6
01

6
02

6
03

6
04

6
05

6
06

6
07

6
08

6
09

6
10

6
11

6
12

6
13

6
14

6
15

6
16

6
17

6
18

6
19

6
20

6
21

6
22

6
23

6
24

6
25

6
26

6
27

6
28

6
29

6
30

6
31

6
32

6
33

6
34

6
35

6
36

6
37

6
38

6
39

6
40

6
41

6
42

6
43

6
44

6
45

6

AUTHOR(S): BMVC AUTHOR GUIDELINES



[3] A. Alpher, J. P. N. Fotheringham
-
Smythe, and G. Gamow. Can a machine frobnicate?
Journal of
Foo
, 14(1):234

778, 2004.

[4] Authors. The frobnicatable foo filter, 2006. ECCV06 submission ID 324. Supplied as additional
material
eccv06.pdf
.

[5] Authors. Fr
obnication tutorial, 2006. Supplied as additional material
tr.pdf
.

[6] N. David Mermin. What’s wrong with these equations?
Physics Today
, October 1989.
http://www.cvpr.org/doc/mermin.pdf
.

2

Notes for DOC users

2.1

Converting to PDF

When printing this document or

converting to
PDF
, it appears that some word processors
have problems with the custom page size of 14.4cm x 21.8cm. The output might be of A4
paper size with the smaller text centred on top. One solution to this problem is to generate
the
PDF

as usual and

later cropping the excess borders with a post processing tool. Some
free
PDF

writers include this post processing option to crop the paper of the final output
.

2.2

Review and final version

The only differences between review and final versions are rulers and
the author list. It is
recommended to use the review template to submit the initial paper. To convert your
review paper to the final version, delete the rulers (text boxes) from the header of the
document and insert the correct title and authors there. To
add the author list on the first
page, copy and paste the table from the final template to your paper and extend the textbox
as required for size
.