| 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
