ICDT Author Response

Write the response for a venue where the referees checked your proofs. ICDT's central author-interaction mechanism is the Cycle-1 Revise-and-resubmit: not a short rebuttal that argues taste, but a returned paper in which each gap the referees named has been closed and the change documented. The second read is done by the same referees; a point raised and not addressed is what turns a revision into a reject.

Confirm the exact interaction model for the live cycle: ICDT's primary lever is the revision; whether a separate short rebuttal/author-comment phase runs in a given edition is 待核实 — read the current call. The advice below applies to the revision and, where one exists, to a brief comment phase.

Triage the referee points first

Sort every point by kind, because the fix differs:

Correctness first, then bounds, then model, then clarity and positioning.

Write the revision, not a debate

• Close the gap in the paper, then point to where: "Lemma 4 now covers the cyclic case (Appendix A, para 3)." The change lives in the PDF; the response is a map to it.
• Prefer a fix over an argument. "We prove the missing lower bound in the new Section 5" beats "we believe the lower bound is not essential."
• Where you decline a request, say why, technically. "A matching lower bound would require resolving [open problem]; we instead scope the claim to [restricted class] (Theorem 3)." An explicit, reasoned decline is respected; a silent omission is not.
• Never argue taste. "We think the model is natural" moves nothing; a referee who found a gap wants it closed, not defended.

Anonymity in the response (since 2024)

The regular track is anonymous through review, so the revised paper and any response text must not de-anonymize you:

• No author names, no "our prior work," no acknowledgments reintroduced in the revision.
• Do not add an arXiv/full-version link that names you into the revised PDF.
• Keep self-citations third-person in the revised text (see icdt-related-work).

A point-by-point skeleton for the revision letter

Summary: what changed at the top level (e.g., "added the matching lower bound; fixed the cyclic
         case in Lemma 4; clarified the complexity measure throughout").

R1.1 [correctness] "Lemma 4 omits the cyclic case."
     -> Fixed. The cyclic case is now handled in Lemma 4, with the argument in Appendix A.
R1.2 [bound] "Only an upper bound is shown."
     -> Added. Theorem 5 now proves a matching lower bound by reduction from <problem>.
R2.1 [model] "Data or combined complexity?"
     -> Clarified. The bound is combined complexity; stated explicitly in Section 3 and the abstract.
R2.2 [positioning] "Relation to [X, PODS year]?"
     -> Added to Related Work: their result is the special case of bounded arity; ours removes it.

The cross-cycle rule (do not misuse the response)

If your paper was rejected in Cycle 1 (not invited to revise), a response cannot resurrect it, and you may not resubmit to Cycle 2 unless the referees explicitly invited it. Reroute instead (icdt-topic-selection). The response letter belongs to the revision path, not the reject path.

Output format

[Interaction type] Cycle-1 revision / short comment phase / na (rejected)
[Point triage] correctness / bound / model / positioning / clarity, each -> concrete change
[Changes made] <list of paper edits with locations>
[Declines] <each declined request + technical reason>
[Anonymity] revised PDF and letter non-identifying? yes/no