SODA runs a short rebuttal, and short is the operative word. For the 2027 cycle, initial reviews reach authors by September 1, 2026 and responses are due September 4, 2026 (checked 2026-07-08 via the SIAM SODA27 submission page, read through search rendering). SODA 2026's rebuttal phase opened September 8, 2025, in a record-submission year — the window is a house institution now, not an experiment, but its exact dates, length caps, and mechanics are reset per cycle (caps for 2027: 待核实 on the HotCRP response form when it opens).
A SODA response is not a negotiation channel. It exists so the PC can distinguish "the referee missed Lemma 4.2" from "Lemma 4.2 is actually broken" before the October decision meeting. Budget accordingly:
| Review problem | Response leverage | Play |
|---|---|---|
| Referee misread a definition or bound | High | Quote the exact line and page; one sentence of correction |
| Referee missed a proof in the back matter | High | Point to the section; the full version was submitted, so it is on record |
| "Improvement too incremental" | Low-medium | One paragraph: name the barrier the prior bound sat at and who tried |
| "Why not compare to [paper]?" | Medium | State the relationship in two sentences; concede if the comparison is due |
| Genuine bug found by the referee | Honest disclosure only | Say whether it is patchable; a false "easily fixed" burns the community's memory |
| Taste objection ("not exciting") | Near zero | Skip it; spend words where facts decide |
Three days is enough to assemble a response only if the material already exists. Between the July submission and September 1:
We thank the referees. We address the substantive points.
Reviewer A
A1 (main theorem "only" improves the exponent): The previous bound of
O(n^{3/2}) [Ref 12] stood since 2015 and was stated as an open problem
in [Ref 3]. Our O(n^{4/3}) crosses the barrier identified in [Ref 12, §6].
A2 (correctness of Lemma 4.2): The referee reads d as the maximum degree;
it is the average degree (defined p.7, l.4). The claimed counterexample
has average degree 3 and satisfies the lemma.
Reviewer B
B1 (missing comparison to [X]): [X] solves the unweighted case; our
Section 2.1 reduction does not preserve weights. We will state this
explicitly in Section 1.
B2 (typo in recurrence, p.19): Correct; the exponent should read k-1.
The solution of the recurrence and all downstream bounds are unchanged.
Multi-author rebuttals fail on coordination, not content. A schedule that has survived real September windows:
| Hour (from review release) | Action | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | Full read; classify each point F/L/S/C (soda-review-process) |
Lead author |
| 4-12 | Claims-ledger lookups for every F and C point | Whole group, split by section |
| 12-24 | First draft, worst review first | Lead author |
| 24-36 | Technical check of every page/lemma reference against the submitted PDF | The coauthor who did blind proof-checking |
| 36-48 | Tone pass: cut defensiveness, cut anything answering an S point at length | Most senior author |
| 48-60 | Freeze; sleep on it | — |
| 60-70 | Final read against the length cap and anonymity rules; submit | Lead author |
| 70-72 | Buffer for HotCRP form surprises | Lead author |
Two structural rules: the person who verifies references must not be the person who wrote the draft, and the submission happens hours before the deadline, not minutes — the response form's mechanics (length caps, formatting) are 待核实 until the form opens, and surprises cost exactly the buffer you kept.
There is no discussion phase with referees. Decisions and final-version
instructions arrive from the PC in October (2027 cycle). If the outcome is
rejection, fold the reviews into the resubmission plan — the natural next
deadlines from a September/October SODA rejection are ITCS (if the contribution is
conceptual), STOC in early November if the fixes are fast, or ESA/ICALP in the
new year (soda-workflow has the calendar).
[Response plan] <points to answer, points to skip, concessions>
[Evidence anchors] <PDF page/lemma reference for each reply>
[Risk flags] <any reply that adds unproved claims or breaks anonymity>
[Coauthor sign-off] <who reviews the draft before the September deadline>