Ijcai author response

IJCAI Author Response

Use this after IJCAI reviews are released. Reopen the current Author's Response FAQ and response template before drafting; rebuttal rules are cycle-specific.

Triage

• Respond only when a reviewer asks a pressing question, when a factual error could drive rejection, or when an unethical review needs confidential escalation.
• Do not use the response to complain about tone, scores, reviewer identity, or broad disagreement without a decision-relevant correction.
• Keep the public PDF response short. IJCAI-ECAI 2026 limited ordinary responses to one page using the official response template.
• Do not upload new code, new links, new experiments, or new results. Clarifying figures or examples are acceptable only when they explain material already in the submission.
• Use the confidential box only for unethical-review concerns; it is not visible to ordinary PC reviewers.
• If a late review arrives during the response period, follow the current FAQ for extension requests rather than guessing.

Compression pattern

1. State the decision-critical correction.
2. Anchor it to the submitted section, table, figure, theorem, appendix, or supplement.
3. Answer the requested clarification and stop.
4. If needed, add a camera-ready clarification promise without adding new evidence.

Triage table: respond or stay silent

The one-page budget forces ruthless selection. The response is not a dialogue, and phase-1 summary-reject papers usually get no response, so reserve the page for decision-changing items.

Reviewer point	Respond?	How
Pressing question that could flip the score	Yes	Point to the submitted location
Factual error driving rejection	Yes	Correct precisely; anchor to section/table/theorem
"Add experiment X"	No new results	Promise a camera-ready note or cite existing evidence
Tone, score, broad disagreement	No	Do not spend budget relitigating
Suspected unethical review	Confidential box	Not the public PDF

Worked vignette: a planning paper rebuttal

A planning paper draws one strong review and one that wrongly claims the optimality proof assumes unit costs. That misreading could drive rejection, so it earns space: cite the assumption already stated in the submitted theorem and point to the appendix proof, without a new result. A second reviewer asks for an extra benchmark family; since no new experiments may be added, promise a camera-ready note and reference the closest existing table. The complaint about presentation tone gets no words.

Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix

• "You added new results in the response." Remove them; clarify only what the submission already supports, since new evidence is disallowed.
• "Response argues the score, not a fact." Refocus on the one decision-critical correction.
• "Reviewer was unethical." Use the confidential channel, not the public response.

Output format

[Response budget] <pages used / current limit>
[Eligible reason] pressing question / factual error / unethical review
[Draft response] <IJCAI-ready text>
[Evidence anchor] <submitted location>
[Do-not-include list] <new results, code links, broad complaints, identity leaks>