![CVPR - How to identify if an accepted paper has ethical issues (plagiarism)? [D]](https://preview.redd.it/nq2ybelqhmwg1.png?width=140&height=27&auto=webp&s=332d81930e3c05db3ec01f735f338c892753ac8f) | I recently found a paper accepted to CVPR 2026 reproduced many technical details from my paper submitted to arXiV on June 2025 (5 months before the CVPR 2026 submission deadline). Apart from technical similarities (they rephrased / reframed the term / key ideas), the CVPR paper uses exactly same equation without changes to any notations from our paper without proper citation. Several figures show high similarities in style and pipeline. We tried to contact authors from the CVPR paper, but they framed the technical similarity as "general method" so no need to cite. While they admitted that they refer to our paper for figure design, writing style, and equation, they can only update the arXiv version of their paper (the CVPR camera ready deadline has passed), claiming that they are "inspired" by us. Basically they would not do anything to their proceeding paper. I am wondering how CVPR identify the plagiarism between their accepted papers and arXiv papers? Will it be considered as plagiarism only if they reproduce a published work? Thanks for any advice! Attached part of the reproduction: Our arXiv work applied a multi-turn extension on the basic GRPO algorithm (with notation changes). The CVPR paper directly adopted the exact same equation without citation. [link] [comments] |
CVPR - How to identify if an accepted paper has ethical issues (plagiarism)? [D]
Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/22/2026
💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisIndustry & Market Moves
Key Points
- A researcher reports that a CVPR 2026 accepted paper appears to reproduce substantial technical content from their earlier arXiv submission, including unchanged equations and highly similar figures/pipelines.
- The authors allegedly justified the overlap as a “general method” and argued that they only needed to update the arXiv/camera-ready version after the CVPR deadline, while they claimed inspiration rather than citation.
- The post asks how CVPR detects or evaluates plagiarism or ethical issues between accepted papers and prior arXiv/preprints, and whether citation is required for work that is not yet formally published.
- The situation highlights uncertainty about what constitutes plagiarism versus legitimate overlap (e.g., shared equations/methods) and what ethical review mechanisms conferences use.
- Overall, the question seeks practical guidance on identifying ethical misconduct in peer-reviewed conference papers when prior work exists on arXiv.
Related Articles
Black Hat USA
AI Business
Big Tech firms are accelerating AI investments and integration, while regulators and companies focus on safety and responsible adoption.
Dev.to
SpaceX is working with Cursor and has an option to buy the startup for $60 billion
TechCrunch
The 58th Attempt: When Your "Meta-Promotion" Becomes Your Actual Product
Dev.to
Evaluating AI Tools for Research: A Framework for Accuracy, Bias, and Trustworthiness
Dev.to
