For US participants planning to travel to CHI’25
Here is some potentially useful information on when border agents can legally conduct searches of travelers’ electronic devices at international airports:
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic
CHI’25 In-Person Registration Nearing Capacity
Thank you for your interest in attending the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’25). We are writing to inform you that registration is now nearing full capacity for our conference venue in Yokohama, Japan. In order to ensure the safety and comfort of all participants, we regretfully must pause registrations at this time. If you would still like to attend CHI’25 in person, you may join our waiting list.
Going forward, all attendees will be directed to register for the virtual conference with the option to join the in-person waitlist. During the virtual registration process, you will be asked if you would like to be considered for an in-person spot, should one become available. If a spot opens up, we will move you to in-person status and notify you via email. Please note that priority for these spots will be given to authors of accepted work. It is mandatory that at least one of the authors register for the conference either in-person or virtual registration.
We understand that this may come as disappointing news, and we sincerely appreciate your understanding. Due to safety regulations, we are unable to exceed the venue’s maximum capacity. Thank you again for your enthusiasm for CHI’25. We hope to welcome as many of you as possible and will keep you updated regarding any changes in availability.
Warm regards,
Naomi Yamashita and Vanessa Evers (General Chairs CHI’25)
Best Paper and Honorable Mention Awards at CHI 2025
Authors: Daniel Vogel & Luigina Ciolfi, CHI 2025 Awards Chairs
The CHI 2025 papers program will feature 50 Best Paper Award winners and 201 Honorable Mentions. The total number of awards is 5% of all 5,014 completed submissions, with 1% reserved for Best Paper Awards.
The process began with the formation of an Awards Committee shortly after the PC meeting in January 2025. Two volunteer ACs from each Subcommittee (as split in A and B if applicable) were sought to join the Awards Committee.
The Awards Chairs received a list of all accepted papers, including: award nominations from ACs who reviewed the paper; Originality, Quality, and Significance scores for round 1 and round 2; and Decision Recommendations for round 1 and round 2. Within each Subcommittee, the papers were sorted using those criteria in that order.
Each Subcommittee was allocated a target number of Best Paper Awards and Honorable Mention Awards proportional to the number of papers handled by that Subcommittee during the review process. Shortlists were generated for each Subcommittee such that they included all papers nominated by ACs who reviewed the paper and such that the number of papers was at least 150% of the target number of awards.
The Awards ACs in each Subcommittee were tasked to review their shortlist and recommend papers for Best Paper, Honorable Mention, or a “Possible Best Paper”. They had access to the data described above in addition to all reviews from round 1 and round 2 and the paper PDF from round 2. They were instructed to respect the target number of awards allocated to their Subcommittee when making recommendations. Awards ACs could work independently or jointly to generate these recommendations. In the case of a conflict of interest with one or more of the shortlisted papers, only Awards ACs who were not conflicted submitted recommendations for those papers.
Once all Subcommittee rankings were completed, the Awards Chairs reviewed them. All recommendations that both Awards ACs agreed on were confirmed within the number of awards allocated to the Subcommittee. When the Awards ACs disagreed or when they had conflicts of interest, the Awards Chairs made a decision considering each Awards AC’s separate recommendations and their provided comments, as well as all the shortlist data and order. A final list of papers with a “Possible Best Paper” recommendation were awarded either a Best Paper or Honourable Mention when ranked across all Subcommittees using the same sort order as the shortlists.
The result is 251 awards that represent exceptional work throughout all CHI Subcommittees.
The full list of Best Papers and Honorable Mentions can be found at: https://programs.sigchi.org/chi/2025/awards/
Congratulations to all winning Authors!
Blossoming at CHI 2025 with Global Plaza sessions and SIGCHI Lounge
Jaydon Farao, Thippaya Chintakovid, and Jordan Aiko Deja, CHI 2025 Global Plaza Chairs
In the conference’s recent editions, the CHI Conference organizers have introduced the Global Inclusion and Equity Initiative (also known as Global Plaza) to make the conference one step closer to being more welcoming to newcomers and inclusive to all. The organizers recognize that participants, especially those from the Global South, experience additional challenges and need extra support to join and participate with the broader CHI community. In this edition, Global Inclusion and Equity is even more emphasized, given the location of the conference.
In response to this, CHI 2025 Global Inclusion and Equity Chairs are partnering with the SIGCHI EC to create a space open to attendees that can host both the 2025 edition of Global Plaza and the SIGCHI Lounge.
We invite you to continue reading below to find out more about this initiative.
The success of the past Global Plazas
The CHI 2022 organizing committee aimed to make SIGCHI’s flagship conference more inclusive and equitable than ever before. To achieve this, they launched the Global Inclusion and Equity Initiative, led by Susan Dray, Annu Sible Prabhakar, Cuauhtemoc Rivera-Loaiza, Marisol Wong-Villacres, and Eiad Yafi, with the invaluable collaboration of Jones Yeboah. The initiative’s key outcome was the Global Plaza (GP) project, designed to create a space—both virtual and physical—for idea exchange and cross-collaboration among attendees.
We are now here to present the 2025 edition, themed “A Sanctuary of Connection and Purpose.” Reflecting the spirit of Yokohama, the Global Plaza serves as a welcoming space for collaboration and meaningful connections. It invites everyone to gather, explore, and share ideas in a warm, inclusive environment—a transformative portal to the conference experience. This year, it will happen alongside SIGCHI EC activities in a shared space with the SIGCHI Lounge.
What’s in store for this year
This year, we’re expanding the Global Inclusion and Equity Initiative with new features that enhance inclusivity across multiple aspects of the CHI conference—not just within the Global Plaza space. Our goal remains the same: to create a welcoming environment for those who need it most, particularly attendees from underrepresented backgrounds.
In addition, with the SIGCHI EC, we’re broadening our efforts to support people at all career stages and to recognize the diverse identities that shape our community. To foster meaningful connections and accessibility, we’ve curated a series of events for this edition, available both in-person and virtually.
Global Plaza Sessions
- Fireside chats with first-time authors.
- Behind the scenes of a paper from conception to publication.
- Conversations with SIGCHI executive members and researchers from other regions
- To ensure a very pleasant registration experience, we now have distinguished between Given Names and Preferred Names and giving registered participants the options of which to use especially on applicable documents (e.g. badge, invoices).
- An engaging experience that motivates participants to get to know as many people through the human bingo format. Watch out, we have a special guaranteed prize to the first two participants who will complete these.
SIGCHI Lounge Sessions
- Practitioners’ Corner to share insights, discuss challenges, and network with attendees, fostering collaboration between academia and practice in HCI.
- Peer Connect for meeting people from across the globe and knowing more about their projects and interests by connecting remote gatherings in various universities with in person attendees.
- Conferences AMA, where attendees can engage with the VP for Conferences, ask questions, and gain insights into conference planning and decision-making.
- Conferences Town Hall Follow-Up is a session where the VP and AC for Conferences address attendee questions, discuss key takeaways, and provide updates on conference-related topics.
The Shared Space as a Sanctuary
This year, the Global Plaza and the SIGCHI Lounge will be vibrant hubs of connection and engagement at the conference. This space will host multiple sessions, beginning after the exhibit openings on Monday and concluding before the Closing Keynote on Thursday.
When sessions are not in progress, the SIGCHI Lounge serves as a welcoming space for attendees to connect, reflect, and build meaningful relationships throughout the conference. Whether you seek structured discussions or informal conversations, these spaces offer a dynamic and inclusive environment for all.
Schedule of Sessions
Everyone at CHI is welcome to join these sessions. The sessions are hybrid, so even those who are not physically present can interact with in-person attendees during the sessions. Given that CHI 2025 is happening in Yokohama, Japan, we do our best to find the time zones that can best accommodate various groups across the globe.
More info on these sessions will be announced soon.
Call for collaboration in the Global Plaza
If you think you can help and have an interest in collaborating in the Global Plaza sanctuary, please reach out to us by signing up through this link for Global Plaza sessions: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F7WR5WX or contact us at global@chi2025.acm.org.
For more details about SIGCHI Lounge sessions, feel free to contact the SIGCHI EC at sigchi-4all@acm.org.
We would also appreciate it if you could help us spread the word about this blog post and the survey link above.
Join Us in Creating a Sanctuary of Connection
The Global Plaza and the SIGCHI Lounge are more than just a space—they are a refuge for meaningful interactions, a place where bridges are built and connections flourish. To make this sanctuary even more inclusive, we invite volunteers who share our vision of a globally connected CHI Conference.
Whether you’d like to welcome virtual attendees, spread the word about Global Plaza Sanctuary and the SIGCHI Lounge, lead sessions in your native language, or bring fresh ideas to enrich the experience, we and the SIGCHI EC would love to have you.
CHI 2025 – Papers track, post-PC outcomes report
Author: Himanshu Verma (Analytics Chair)
Date: 2025-02-26
NB — The numbers might not always work out here, there are missing data from the analyses due to conflicts.
This blog post covers outcomes from the CHI 2025 Program Committee (PC) meeting, which took place from the 13-15th January 2025.
After the first round of reviews, 1,969 submissions were invited to submit revisions. Of these invited submissions, 1,933 were resubmitted. External reviewers and Associate Chairs (ACs) asynchronously reviewed and discussed these revised submissions and made individual binary accept/reject decisions. Submissions were then discussed in subcommittees at the PC meeting, where final accept/reject decisions were made. Please refer to the previous blog post for an analysis of the submissions after the first round of reviews.
Overall Acceptance Rates
Of the initial 5,014 completed submissions, the CHI 2025 Program Committee has conditionally accepted 1,249 submissions. The overall acceptance rate for the Papers track was 24.9% of completed submissions. Of the submissions that were revised and resubmitted, 64.6% were accepted.
Of the initial completed submissions (including desk-rejected papers), the overall acceptance rate for “short” submissions (under 5,000 words) was 7.8% (37 out of 473 completed submissions). The overall acceptance rate was 27.0% (1,198 out of 4,444 completed submissions) for “standard” submissions (between 5,000 and 12,000 words). In addition, there was an overall acceptance rate of 22.6% (14 out of 62 completed submissions) for “excessively long” submissions (over 12,000 words).
Acceptance Rates By Subcommittee
Submissions to the CHI Papers track are made to one of eighteen subcommittees. These subcommittees have a topic focus (e.g., Health, Design, User Experience). In our previous blog post, we discussed submission rates and the distribution of first-round rejections (X1) and revise and resubmits (RR). The final range of acceptance rates were between 18.4% (Games & Play) and 32% (Specific Application Areas). Figure 1 shows the acceptance rates for each subcommittee.
Figure 1: Acceptance rates by subcommittee for CHI 2025 papers.
If we further examine the acceptance rates across the subcommittees, we see that the Games & Play subcommittee had the lowest acceptance rate of 18.4%, followed by User Experience (19%) and Computational Interaction (21%). Furthermore, Accessibility (30.8%), Critical Computing (31.1%), and Specific Application Areas (32%) had the highest acceptance rates. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of submissions and the respective acceptance rates for the various subcommittees.
| Primary Subcommittee | # Accepted Submissions | # Submissions | % Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games & Play | 30 | 163 | 18.4 |
| User Experience | 62 | 326 | 19.0 |
| Computational Interaction | 61 | 291 | 21.0 |
| Design | 80 | 372 | 21.5 |
| Health | 80 | 351 | 22.8 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 62 | 256 | 24.2 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 78 | 318 | 24.5 |
| Visualization | 46 | 188 | 24.5 |
| Interacting with Devices | 81 | 328 | 24.7 |
| Learning | 85 | 343 | 24.8 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 47 | 184 | 25.5 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 85 | 324 | 26.2 |
| Privacy | 62 | 234 | 26.5 |
| Blending Interaction | 90 | 331 | 27.2 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 34 | 122 | 27.9 |
| Accessibility | 100 | 325 | 30.8 |
| Critical Computing | 83 | 267 | 31.1 |
| Specific Applications | 82 | 256 | 32.0 |
Next, considering the completed revised and resubmitted papers, Figure 2 shows the number of submissions in each subcommittee that were either conditionally accepted (A2) or rejected (X2).
Figure 2: Number of revised and resubmitted submissions in each subcommittee with decision for CHI 2025.
Figure 3 and Table 2 below show the analysis for the revised and resubmitted (R&R) articles along with the decision, i.e., conditional acceptance (A2) and rejection (X2), across the different subcommittees. The lowest acceptance rates for R&R were within the Games & Play (51.7%), Privacy (58.5%), and User Experience (58.5%) subcommittees. However, the highest acceptance rates for R&R were within the Visualization (70.8%), Understanding People (Qualitative) (71.4%), and Specific Application Areas (77.4%) subcommittees.
Figure 3: Acceptance rates by subcommittee when considering only revised and resubmitted papers for CHI 2025.
| Primary Subcommittee | # Conditional Accepts | # Rejects | % Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games & Play | 30 | 28 | 51.72 |
| Privacy | 62 | 44 | 58.49 |
| User Experience | 62 | 44 | 58.49 |
| Developing Novel Devices | 34 | 23 | 59.65 |
| Design | 80 | 53 | 60.15 |
| Interacting with Devices | 81 | 53 | 60.45 |
| Blending Interaction | 90 | 53 | 62.94 |
| Understanding People (Quant) | 78 | 44 | 63.93 |
| Learning | 85 | 47 | 64.39 |
| Accessibility | 100 | 51 | 66.23 |
| Computational Interaction | 61 | 31 | 66.30 |
| Understanding People (Mixed) | 63 | 31 | 67.02 |
| Health | 80 | 39 | 67.23 |
| Interaction Beyond the Individual | 47 | 21 | 69.12 |
| Critical Computing | 83 | 36 | 69.75 |
| Visualization | 46 | 19 | 70.77 |
| Understanding People (Qual) | 85 | 34 | 71.43 |
| Specific Applications | 82 | 24 | 77.36 |
Reviewer Recommendations
Each paper in the CHI Papers track receives recommendations from reviewers (including 1AC, 2AC, and external reviewers). Although these recommendations may resemble scores, they are not actually scores. As a result, we cannot analyze the mean scores for different submissions. However, we can examine the mix of recommendations received for each submission and visualize how they correlate with the final decision. In particular, do all accepted papers have a “clean sweep” of recommendations for acceptance? Or, what is the mix of recommendations for rejected submissions? Figure 4 visualizes these patterns for revised and resubmitted (R&R) submissions that received final recommendations—as either accept or reject—from four reviewers.
Figure 4: Cumulative reviewer recommendations for papers invited to revise and resubmit to CHI 2025 that received four recommendations.
Not all revised and resubmitted papers received four recommendations from four reviewers (1AC, 2AC, and two external reviewers), including (a) 11 submissions that received two final recommendations, (b) 135 submissions that received three final recommendations, (c) 137 submissions that received five final recommendations, and (d) 2 submissions that received six final recommendations. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of reviewer recommendations for papers that received five recommendations for the revised and resubmitted papers. These submissions correspond to cases where a 3AC was brought in to assist in decision making or when a conflict arose. Moreover, Table 3 highlights submissions (which were revised and resubmitted) that did not receive four reviewer recommendations.
Figure 5: Cumulative reviewer recommendations for papers invited to revise and resubmit to CHI 2025 that received five recommendations. These submissions correspond to cases where a 3AC was brought in to assist in decision making or when a conflict arose.
| Decision | # Accept Recommendations | # Reject Recommendations | Total # Recommendations | # Submissions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | 3 | 0 | 3 | 94 |
| Reject | 2 | 3 | 5 | 50 |
| Reject | 1 | 4 | 5 | 33 |
| Reject | 0 | 3 | 3 | 29 |
| Accept | 4 | 1 | 5 | 23 |
| Reject | 0 | 5 | 5 | 13 |
| Accept | 3 | 2 | 5 | 9 |
| Accept | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| Accept | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| Accept | 5 | 0 | 5 | 7 |
| Reject | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Reject | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Reject | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Reject | 0 | 6 | 6 | 1 |
| Reject | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
