---

name: acmmm-related-work description: Use when building or auditing the related-work section of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — covering the multimedia literature spread across vision, audio/speech, language, HCI/QoE, and systems, handling arXiv-speed concurrency, keeping citations double-blind, and verifying that cited "ACM MM papers" are ACM MM and not ICMR, MMSys, CVPR, or TOMM.

ACM MM Related Work

Use this to position an ACM Multimedia paper against a literature that is unusually spread out: a cross-modal contribution touches several single-modality communities plus the multimedia venues that combine them.

The five multimedia shelves

A strong ACM MM related-work section shows command of all shelves the contribution touches, not just the author's home community:

• Vision — the visual side (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV) your method builds on or competes with.
• Audio/speech and music — the acoustic side (ICASSP, INTERSPEECH, ISMIR) if a stream is audio.
• Language — the text side (ACL/EMNLP) if captions, transcripts, or descriptions matter.
• HCI / QoE / human-centric — perception, engagement, and interaction (CHI, QoMEX) when the claim is subjective.
• Multimedia proper — ACM MM, ICMR, MMSys, and TOMM, where these threads are combined.

Coverage vs. venue-hygiene table

| Task | What to do | Failure it prevents | |---|---|---| | Cover each modality you use | Cite the current best single-modality work per stream | "You ignored the vision literature" | | Cite the fusion lineage | Trace the cross-modal line your method extends | "No delta over existing fusion" | | Verify the venue string | Confirm each "ACM MM" cite on dblp conf/mm | Misattributing an ICMR/CVPR paper to ACM MM | | Handle concurrency | Note contemporaneous arXiv work honestly | "You missed / overclaimed novelty vs. X" | | Keep it blind | Cite your own prior work in third person | Double-blind violation |

Positioning, not listing

Do not enumerate. For each closest neighbor, state in one clause what it did and in one clause what your paper adds — and make sure the delta is cross-modal, since "we swap a better encoder" is a single-modality delta a reviewer will discount.

[Neighbor] Late-fusion audio-visual highlight scoring (VenueYear).
[Their move] Average per-modality scores.
[Our delta] Score the timing DISAGREEMENT between streams — a signal averaging cannot represent.

Concurrency under arXiv speed

Multimedia sub-areas move fast and preprint heavily. Acknowledge genuinely concurrent work (roughly same-window preprints) as concurrent rather than prior, do not claim to beat a method you did not run, and do not silently drop a close preprint — a reviewer who knows it reads the omission as evasion.

Double-blind citation hygiene

• Cite your own earlier papers in the third person ("Prior work [X] showed..."), never "our previous paper."
• Avoid anonymity leaks through a dataset, system name, or repository that only your group uses.
• The single-blind tracks (Reproducibility, Open Source Software, Dataset) relax this — but the main track and Brave New Ideas do not.

Building the section in passes

Pass 1: list the modalities and sub-fields your contribution touches (the shelves).
Pass 2: for each shelf, cite the current strongest 2-3 works you build on or beat.
Pass 3: trace the FUSION lineage — the cross-modal line your method extends — as its own thread.
Pass 4: add same-window arXiv work as concurrent, not prior.
Pass 5: verify every "ACM MM" cite on dblp; convert your self-cites to third person.

A reader should finish the section able to name which prior fusion approach you improve on and why the single-modality shelves are covered but not the whole story.

The multimedia-specific omission risk

Because a cross-modal paper sits between communities, the dangerous omission is usually the other community's closest work — a vision-trained author who misses the audio or IR paper that already did half the job. Before submitting, ask a question from each shelf's perspective: "what would an audio reviewer, an IR reviewer, and a systems reviewer each say I missed?" That triage catches the omissions that sink cross-area papers.

Venue-verification pass

Before submission, spot-check every citation that claims an ACM MM placement against dblp's conf/mm edition record. The common traps: ICMR papers cited as ACM MM, TOMM journal articles cited as the conference, and CVPR/ICCV vision papers cited as multimedia. Fix the venue string or the claim that rests on it.

Output format

[Shelf coverage] vision/audio/language/HCI-QoE/multimedia — <covered / gaps>
[Fusion lineage] traced / missing
[Deltas] cross-modal and specific / single-modality or vague: <list>
[Concurrency] handled / risky omissions: <list>
[Blindness] clean / leaks: <list>
[Venue hygiene] verified / suspect cites: <list>