usenixsec-author-response

name	usenixsec-author-response
description	Use when reviews arrive from a USENIX Security Symposium cycle and the authors must respond — writing the rebuttal that survives online PC discussion, handling required ethics-content revisions flagged mid-review, and working with a shepherd after an "Accepted on Shepherd Approval" decision.

USENIX Security Author Response

USENIX Security gives authors two distinct speaking moments, and they obey different rules: the mid-review response to reviewers, and the post-decision exchange with a shepherd. This skill covers both. Mechanics shift per cycle — the '25 model was documented in detail on the reviewing-model page, the '26 model partially, and the '27 mechanics are 待核实 — so confirm the current instructions in HotCRP before drafting.

Where the response sits in the pipeline

In the '25 model (the last fully documented one): two reviews in round one; papers survive to round two if at least one reviewer sees a path to acceptance after online discussion; round two adds two more reviews; then authors respond; reviewers discuss again and decide. Two consequences follow:

• By the time you respond, four reviewers have read the paper but the committee has not settled. The response's real audience is the discussion that follows it.
• Papers cut at the early-reject notification never get a response window at all. There is no appeal lane inside the cycle; the recovery move is a revised resubmission (see usenixsec-review-process for the restriction rules).

One more '25-documented pattern worth planning for: submissions with inadequate ethics discussions were flagged during review, and authors were required to supply revised ethics content in the response phase. Treat an ethics question in a review as a compliance demand, not an opinion to debate.

Sorting the reviews before writing

Objection type	What it usually means at this venue	Response move
Threat model unrealistic	Reviewer rejects the attacker capabilities	Defend with deployment evidence, or narrow the claim explicitly
Ethics gap / disclosure question	Compliance flag, possibly chair-visible	Answer completely; state disclosure timeline and vendor contact status
Evaluation missing an adaptive attacker	Defense papers' most common kill	Present the adaptive experiment if it exists; commit precisely if it fits shepherding scope
Overlap with concurrent work	Cycle collision, common with two cycles/year	Date the overlap, differentiate mechanism and evidence
"Measurement may be artifact of vantage point"	Methodology doubt	Show cross-vantage or cross-time consistency numbers

Answer the compliance-shaped items first and fully; a brilliant technical rebuttal does not offset an unanswered disclosure question.

Drafting rules that fit this venue

• Number every point and quote the review fragment being answered; the discussion phase skims, and unanchored prose gets skipped.
• Give evidence that already exists (a table row, an appendix reference, a number) priority over promises. Since '26 the largest change a paper can absorb after decision is a two-week shepherding pass — never promise revisions bigger than that window can hold.
• Keep anonymity discipline: no identifying links, no "in our lab" phrasing.
• If a reviewer misread, demonstrate the misreading with a page/section pointer and move on without scoring the point.

# Response skeleton (per review point)
[R2.3] "the scanner may overload targets"
  Facts: Section 5.2 caps probe rate at 1 req/s/host; opt-out honored within 24h
         (Appendix: Ethical Considerations, para 2).
  Change offered: none needed — pointer only.

[R1.4] "no adaptive attacker"
  Facts: new experiment, gradient-aware evader, detection drops 94%→81% (table below).
  Change offered: add as Sec 6.4 (~0.5 page); fits shepherding scope.

After the decision: shepherd mode

"Accepted on Shepherd Approval" (the '26 outcome replacing major revisions) means the committee wants the paper but conditions publication on named changes — clarifications, limitation discussions, toned-down claims — that are unlikely to change enthusiasm. Working rules:

1. Convert the decision letter into a change matrix (request → edit → location) and send it to the shepherd before editing, so scope is agreed once.
2. Deliver inside the two-week window; the shepherd's sign-off is the acceptance.
3. Do not smuggle in new results the committee never reviewed; flag anything beyond the requested list explicitly and let the shepherd rule on it.
4. Track every edit against the camera-ready deadline for your cycle — shepherding and final-paper preparation overlap (see usenixsec-camera-ready).

Reverify each cycle

• Whether the current cycle includes an author response phase at all, its length, and its format (HotCRP field vs PDF) — '27 values 待核实.
• The shepherding window length and whether "Accepted on Shepherd Approval" remains the intermediate outcome.
• Any word/character limit on responses.

Output format

[Phase] mid-review response / shepherd exchange
[Compliance items] ethics or disclosure questions + answers drafted: yes/no
[Point map] review point → evidence → offered change (within shepherding scope?)
[Risk] points conceded or narrowed, and the wording
[Next deadline] response or shepherd deadline, camera-ready implications