brycewang-stanford ASPLOS Author Response
The 2027 CFP defines the rebuttal's job narrowly: (1) correct factual errors in the reviews, and (2) answer the questions reviewers posed. There is no hard length cap, but reviewers are not expected to read past 800 words (verified 2026-07-08). Both facts should shape every drafting decision below. The 2027 windows are fixed and short — July 6-9, 2026 for the April cycle (open on this pack's check date) and December 1-4, 2026 for the September cycle.
Hour one: triage before prose
Sort every review remark into exactly one bucket:
| Bucket | Definition | Response posture |
|---|---|---|
| Factual error | The review misstates what the paper says, measures, or assumes | Correct it, with a section/figure/table pointer — highest priority, CFP-sanctioned |
| Direct question | The reviewer asked for a clarification | Answer in ≤ 3 sentences, citing where the paper already contains the material |
| Evidence dispute | The reviewer doubts a result or baseline | Point to the existing run/ablation that addresses it; concede if none exists |
| Judgment call | "Not novel enough", "fit is marginal" | One calm paragraph max, or zero — rebuttals rarely move taste |
| Revision seed | A fixable gap you agree with | Acknowledge + state the concrete fix; this is you negotiating the Major Revision terms |
The last bucket is ASPLOS-specific leverage: because the decision set includes Major Revision, a response that shows requested work is scoped and feasible in six weeks gives the committee a reason to choose revision over rejection.
The 800-word budget
Assume only the first 800 words are read; structure so truncation is harmless:
Words 1- 80 Global note: 1-2 sentences of thanks + the single most
important correction, stated flatly with a pointer.
Words 80-560 Numbered items, worst objection first. Format per item:
[R2-Q1] Claim/question -> answer -> evidence pointer (§, Fig, Tab).
Words 560-800 Revision seeds: "If given the opportunity, we will X, Y, Z" —
each one concrete, bounded, and honest about what exists today.
Overflow Optional detail annex, clearly marked; assume unread.
Write pointers, not paraphrases: "§6.4's ablation isolates the hint register (row 3 of Table 5)" outlasts three sentences of re-argument.
Rules of evidence
- Argue only from the submitted PDF and its appendices. New numbers produced during a four-day window read as unreviewable and can poison trust in the reviewed ones.
- If a reviewer misread because the paper was unclear, say both halves: the correct reading, and that the text will be clarified — the misreading is data about your writing.
- Never restate a weakness in stronger words than the reviewer used; answer the version they wrote.
- Preserve anonymity: no identifying links, no "as we showed in our earlier paper" in the first person.
Anticipating each decision from the response
- Toward Accept: every factual error corrected with pointers; questions answered; no new promises needed.
- Toward Major Revision: disputes conceded where real, each paired with a bounded fix — you are drafting the revision contract's terms in your own language before the committee writes them in theirs.
- Away from Reject: the response's tone matters most on the margin; a defensive or evasive rebuttal confirms a skeptical reviewer's prior. Flat, specific, checkable sentences are the house style.
Team protocol for a 3-4 day window
- Day 0 (reviews arrive): full-team read; triage table filled; owner per item.
- Day 1: draft answers with pointers verified against the submitted PDF — not the current working draft, which has diverged.
- Day 2: cut to budget; adversarial read by the author who wrote least of it.
- Final day: submit early; HotCRP forms have closing times, and AoE arithmetic under deadline stress is how windows get missed.
Sentence patterns, graded
Systems reviewers reward flatness and pointers; they punish advocacy verbs.
- Works: "R2 states the baseline ran untuned; §6.1 documents the three tunables we set and their values, matching the vendor guide." — correction, pointer, checkable.
- Works: "Yes — the design targets sub-VM granularity; §3.4's interface section defines the virtualization behavior R1 asks about." — direct answer first, location second.
- Fails: "We respectfully disagree with the reviewer's assessment of novelty." — spends words restating the objection, adds no evidence.
- Fails: "As is well known in the community..." — condescension detector; if it were well known, the reviewer would know it.
- Fails: "We will completely rewrite Section 5." — unbounded promise; the Major Revision channel rewards bounded, verifiable commitments only.
When reviews contradict each other
Reviewer A wants the simulator sweep expanded; reviewer B calls simulation the paper's weakness. Do not privately pick a side: name the tension in one neutral sentence and resolve it with the claim-instrument logic ("the sweep tests generality; the silicon runs carry the headline claim — §6.2 vs §6.5"), so the committee discussion inherits your framing instead of improvising one. A response that surfaces and resolves a contradiction reads as authors who understand their own evidence architecture.
Arming your champion
A response is read most attentively by the reviewer already inclined to argue for the paper. Give that reviewer portable ammunition: one-sentence answers they can paste into the discussion, exact figure references, and a crisp statement of what the paper does not claim (scope concessions defuse the skeptic's strongest line). If no review shows champion potential, the realistic response goal shifts to securing the Major Revision outcome rather than outright acceptance — write the revision-seed section accordingly.
Output format
[Triage] errors: N · questions: N · disputes: N · judgment: N · revision seeds: N
[Budget] main-body words: N/800 · items ordered worst-first: Y/N
[Pointer audit] every answer carries §/Fig/Tab: Y/N
[New-data check] zero unreviewable numbers introduced: Y/N
[Revision terms offered] <the bounded fixes promised, one line each>
[Submission] uploaded with ≥12h margin: Y/N