Below are some potentially interesting statistics I have generated from the JSON file from the CHI 2026 program.

I consider only 'full papers' here. There were a total of 1,705 accepted full papers, from a total of 6,730 submitted (25.3% accept rate). Presenting statistics like this is an idea I borrowed (stole) from whatthehci.com, which seems to no longer be updated. You can also check out some cool statistics for the conference on the official blog.

Places 🌏

• All King's College London CHI Papers

• All British CHI papers

• All London CHI papers

Ranks 📊

• CHI papers by institution (rank)

• CHI papers by country (rank)

• CHI papers by city (rank)

• CHI papers by author (rank)

Keywords ⌨️

• Papers with *accessibility* and/or *disability* in the title or abstract

• Papers with *aphasia* in the title or abstract

• Papers with *large language model* or *LLM* or *ChatGPT* in the title or abstract

Quirks 🙃

• Papers with "beyond" in title

• Papers with a colon (":") in the title

• Papers a title that follows the structure "from x to y"

Awards 🥇

• Ranking of institutions by Best Paper Awards

• Ranking of insitutions by Honourable Mention Awards

• Ranking of insitutions by awards (all)

Note: All files are static HTML, generated with some simple Python scripts. There are issues with the original data—e.g., the data includes both "King's College London" and "Kings College London". There are misspellings of institutions and cities. There are also labels for geopolitical entities that may be politically sensitive. I have simply presented the data here exactly as it was entered into PCS. Other decisions were made for ease of understanding and implementation. In short, do not use this as any kind of definitive source. It is also important to note that many of the above numbers are mostly meaningless, and you should not take them too seriously. This article summarizes well that many of these metrics are somewhat unimportant. For instance "none of the 'top' cited 100 CHI papers received a Best Paper award, and only two received an honorable mention". This said, citations are also probably not a good proxy for impact :)