AISTATS Author Response
Use this after AISTATS reviews are released. Reopen the current OpenReview instructions and
author-discussion policy before drafting because response mechanics are cycle-specific.
Triage
- Answer concerns that affect correctness, novelty, statistical validity, clarity,
reproducibility, or fit for AISTATS.
- Use existing submitted evidence: paper sections, appendices, supplementary material,
theorem statements, experiments, checklist entries, and code/data descriptions.
- Keep the reply anonymous. Do not reveal institution, authorship, grants, private URLs, or
repository ownership.
- Treat discussion as clarification, not revision. Do not depend on uploading a revised paper
or new supplement unless current instructions explicitly allow it.
- If current rules prohibit links, do not use URLs in the discussion. AISTATS 2026
author-reviewer discussion was text-only and links were not allowed.
- Correct factual errors first, then address requests for missing comparisons, uncertainty
estimates, proofs, or hyperparameters.
Drafting pattern
- State the decision-critical correction or concession.
- Point to exact submitted evidence.
- Explain the statistical or theoretical consequence.
- Promise a camera-ready wording fix only if it does not add unsupported new claims.
Statistician-reviewer pushback patterns
| Pushback |
What it signals |
AISTATS-ready fix |
| "Assumption A3 seems strong" |
The reviewer traced the proof chain |
Point to where A3 is verified, weakened, or shown necessary; never dismiss it as standard without a citation |
| "The experiments violate the theorem conditions" |
Theory-experiment mismatch spotted |
Identify which conclusions survive misspecification and cite the robustness simulation that shows it |
| "Observed rates do not match the bound" |
The reviewer compared empirical slopes against theory |
Reference the log-log plot, or explain the constant-dominated regime at the tested sample sizes |
| "Comparison with the classical statistical method is missing" |
Statistics-literature gap |
Anchor to the appendix comparison, or concede and scope a camera-ready clarification |
Response micro-example
Reviewer objection: the minimax claim hides its dependence on dimension d. Reply skeleton:
- Concede that the d-dependence appears only in the appendix constant.
- Quote the exact constant from Theorem 2 so the reviewer need not search.
- Note that the simulation at d = 100 in Figure 4 follows the predicted scaling.
- Offer one camera-ready sentence making the dependence explicit in the main text.
Discussion-phase calibration
- One decision-critical point per reviewer beats exhaustive replies; AISTATS meta-reviewers
read for whether the central statistical objection was actually resolved.
- Never paste new theorem statements or fresh proofs into the discussion box; sketch the
argument and anchor it in submitted material only.
- Respond early in the window — AISTATS discussion periods are short and reviewers who reply
once rarely reply twice.
- Length and formatting norms vary by cycle; recheck the current discussion instructions
before sending anything.
Output format
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / statistical validity / clarity / reproducibility
[Draft response] <AISTATS-ready anonymous text>
[Evidence anchor] <paper/appendix/supplement item>
[Forbidden content removed] <links, identity leaks, new unsupported claims>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → AISTATS-Skills/skills/aistats-author-response/SKILL.md
1---2name: aistats-author-response3description: Use when drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.4---567# AISTATS Author Response89Use this after AISTATS reviews are released. Reopen the current OpenReview instructions and10author-discussion policy before drafting because response mechanics are cycle-specific.1112## Triage1314- Answer concerns that affect correctness, novelty, statistical validity, clarity,15 reproducibility, or fit for AISTATS.16- Use existing submitted evidence: paper sections, appendices, supplementary material,17 theorem statements, experiments, checklist entries, and code/data descriptions.18- Keep the reply anonymous. Do not reveal institution, authorship, grants, private URLs, or19 repository ownership.20- Treat discussion as clarification, not revision. Do not depend on uploading a revised paper21 or new supplement unless current instructions explicitly allow it.22- If current rules prohibit links, do not use URLs in the discussion. AISTATS 202623 author-reviewer discussion was text-only and links were not allowed.24- Correct factual errors first, then address requests for missing comparisons, uncertainty25 estimates, proofs, or hyperparameters.2627## Drafting pattern28291. State the decision-critical correction or concession.302. Point to exact submitted evidence.313. Explain the statistical or theoretical consequence.324. Promise a camera-ready wording fix only if it does not add unsupported new claims.3334## Statistician-reviewer pushback patterns3536| Pushback | What it signals | AISTATS-ready fix |37|---|---|---|38| "Assumption A3 seems strong" | The reviewer traced the proof chain | Point to where A3 is verified, weakened, or shown necessary; never dismiss it as standard without a citation |39| "The experiments violate the theorem conditions" | Theory-experiment mismatch spotted | Identify which conclusions survive misspecification and cite the robustness simulation that shows it |40| "Observed rates do not match the bound" | The reviewer compared empirical slopes against theory | Reference the log-log plot, or explain the constant-dominated regime at the tested sample sizes |41| "Comparison with the classical statistical method is missing" | Statistics-literature gap | Anchor to the appendix comparison, or concede and scope a camera-ready clarification |4243## Response micro-example4445Reviewer objection: the minimax claim hides its dependence on dimension d. Reply skeleton:46471. Concede that the d-dependence appears only in the appendix constant.482. Quote the exact constant from Theorem 2 so the reviewer need not search.493. Note that the simulation at d = 100 in Figure 4 follows the predicted scaling.504. Offer one camera-ready sentence making the dependence explicit in the main text.5152## Discussion-phase calibration5354- One decision-critical point per reviewer beats exhaustive replies; AISTATS meta-reviewers55 read for whether the central statistical objection was actually resolved.56- Never paste new theorem statements or fresh proofs into the discussion box; sketch the57 argument and anchor it in submitted material only.58- Respond early in the window — AISTATS discussion periods are short and reviewers who reply59 once rarely reply twice.60- Length and formatting norms vary by cycle; recheck the current discussion instructions61 before sending anything.6263## Output format6465```text66[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>67[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / statistical validity / clarity / reproducibility68[Draft response] <AISTATS-ready anonymous text>69[Evidence anchor] <paper/appendix/supplement item>70[Forbidden content removed] <links, identity leaks, new unsupported claims>71```7273---7475**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `AISTATS-Skills/skills/aistats-author-response/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain