WACV Author Response

WACV gives you two different response instruments, and confusing them wastes the one that matters. Use this after Round 1 reviews arrive. Facts are the WACV 2026/2027 cycles as read on 2026-07-09; reopen the current Author Guidelines for the rebuttal template and rules before drafting.

Know which instrument you are writing

The strategic point: at WACV the change summary that accompanies a Revise-and-Resubmit carries more weight than any rebuttal, because Round 2 has no rebuttal to fall back on. If you must choose where to spend effort, spend it on executing and documenting the revision.

The one-page Round 1 rebuttal

Treat it as a single skimmable page written for the area chair, who must reconcile three reviews. Order it by decision impact, not by reviewer number:

1. Factual corrections first. If a reviewer's objection rests on a misread ("no ablation of component X" when Table 3 is exactly that), correct it in one line with the pointer. Factual kills move a recommendation fastest.
2. The single biggest shared concern next, answered with a mini-result the page can hold — one small table or one number, not a promise.
3. Calibrated concessions. Concede what is true and scope the claim; a rebuttal that disputes everything reads as defensive to the AC.

A rebuttal cannot add a new contribution, link to external material, or exceed the page. It can correct errors, clarify scope, and present a small confirmatory result that already exists.

[AC summary line] The core objection (R2/R3): "X under condition C" — addressed in point 1.
1. FACTUAL: R2 says no matched-baseline comparison. See Tab. 3 (same budget). Not missing.
2. CORE: R1/R3 doubt robustness under C. New small table: metric held within m over 3 seeds.
3. CONCEDE: R3 is right that claim was too broad; we scope it to setting S (one sentence).

The Revise-and-Resubmit change summary

This is where WACV papers are actually won. Read the R1 reviews as a revision specification, then:

• Enumerate each reviewer-requested change and map it to a concrete edit (new experiment, rewritten claim, added baseline, clarified assumption).
• Make exactly those changes in the paper, and keep the artifact and supplement in sync with the revised claims (see wacv-artifact-evaluation, wacv-supplementary).
• Write a short, itemized summary of what changed and where, in the reviewers' own terms, so the Round 2 reviewers can verify the gap is closed without re-deriving it.

Anonymity holds throughout

Both instruments are double-blind. Do not de-anonymize in the rebuttal or the change summary, do not link to author-identifying pages, and do not name your institution or prior work in first person. A response that leaks identity can undo the review it was meant to win.

Reverify each cycle

• The Round 1 rebuttal length and template, and that Round 2 still has no rebuttal.
• Whether a structured change summary / response field is required for revised R2 papers.
• Any word or format limit and the no-external-links rule.

Output format

[Instrument] one-page R1 rebuttal / R&R change summary / none (new R2)
[AC-facing summary] <one line naming the decisive objection>
[Factual corrections] <list with pointers>
[Core concern + existing evidence] <mini-table or number>
[Concessions/scoping] <what you concede>
[If R&R] each requested change → edit made: <mapping>
[Anonymity] clean: yes/no