icalp-author-response

name	icalp-author-response
description	Use when writing an ICALP (EATCS) Track B rebuttal in response to initial reviews, or when handling a Track A correctness query — correcting reviewer misreadings of a proof, pointing to the exact lemma or step that answers an objection, conceding real gaps honestly, and staying within the lightweight double-blind rules and the short rebuttal window.

ICALP Author Response

Two very different situations live here, because the tracks differ:

• Track B gives you a rebuttal window (ICALP 2026: 21-24 March) to respond to initial reviews.
• Track A has no general rebuttal; authors are contacted only if the PC needs to resolve a correctness issue. If that happens, answer narrowly and precisely.

There is no revision round at ICALP (unlike a journal), so the response is your one and only chance to speak — and it can only move a paper by fixing misreadings and correctness doubts, never by arguing taste.

Track B rebuttal: what it can and cannot do

A rebuttal moves a borderline paper when it:

• Corrects a factual misreading of a definition, hypothesis, or proof step.
• Points to the exact place an objection is already answered ("Lemma 4 assumes X, which the reviewer's counterexample violates; see line ...").
• Supplies a missing clarification a reviewer explicitly asked for (a constant, a boundary case, a comparison to a bound they named).

It does not move a paper when it:

• Argues the result is more important than the reviewer thinks (taste).
• Promises to add a proof "in the final version" that is not already written.
• Re-derives the whole paper instead of answering the specific point.

Triage the reviews first

[Correctness doubt] a reviewer questions a specific step -> HIGHEST priority: resolve it exactly
[Misreading]        a reviewer misstates what you proved -> correct crisply, cite the line
[Missing comparison] "how does this compare to [bound]?" -> give the one-sentence comparison
[Significance/taste] "not surprising / incremental"     -> brief, factual context; do not litigate
[Genuine gap]        a real hole they found             -> concede honestly; state what survives

Spend your limited words on correctness and misreadings, which you can actually change, not on significance debates, which you usually cannot.

Answering a correctness doubt (the make-or-break case)

Because there is no revision round, a real proof gap is usually fatal — but a misperceived gap is very much winnable:

• If the reviewer misread: quote the exact hypothesis/lemma/line that closes their concern, in two or three sentences. Precision beats volume.
• If the gap is real but reparable and the repair is already in the full version: point to it precisely; do not claim a fix you have not written.
• If the gap is real and open: say so. State exactly which results still hold and which are weakened. Honesty preserves your credibility and the salvageable parts.

Track A correctness contact

If Track A reaches out about correctness, treat it like a focused Track B correctness answer: address only the step in question, point to the proof, and provide the missing detail. Do not use it to argue significance or add new claims.

Form and constraints

• Stay anonymous. The rebuttal is part of lightweight double-blind review — no author names, institutions, or de-anonymizing "as we did in [our other paper]".
• Be concise and mapped. Answer per reviewer and per point; a reviewer should find their concern addressed without hunting.
• Lead with the highest-stakes correctness point, then misreadings, then clarifications.
• No new theorems. You may clarify or point to existing proofs; you may not introduce results the referees have not seen.

Response skeleton (Track B)

Summary (2-3 sentences): what we clarify, and the one correctness point we resolve.

Reviewer 1
  - [Correctness] Concern about Step 3: <exact hypothesis/lemma/line that answers it>.
  - [Misreading] R1 states we assume <X>; we assume <Y> (Def 2). Consequence: <...>.
Reviewer 2
  - [Comparison] vs the bound of [ref]: <one-sentence comparison>.
  - [Clarification] <the requested constant / boundary case>.
Reviewer 3
  - [Conceded] The gap in Lemma 6 is real; Theorems 1-2 are unaffected; Cor 3 weakens to <...>.

Output format

[Track] B (rebuttal window) / A (correctness contact only)
[Triage] correctness doubts / misreadings / comparisons / taste / real gaps — counts
[Priority answers] the correctness/misreading points that can actually change the decision
[Concessions] real gaps, stated honestly, with what survives
[Anonymity] response free of identifying info? yes/no
[Forbidden] new theorems / taste arguments / promised-but-unwritten proofs — present? remove