hri-author-response

HRI Author Response (Rebuttal)

HRI gives you one rebuttal, and it matters: because reviewers **discuss and can revise scores

after** it, a focused rebuttal routinely changes decisions. But it is a conference rebuttal, not a

journal revise-and-resubmit — you cannot run a new study before the deadline, and there is **no

in-cycle major-revision round**. The job is to make the reviewers who read your paper feel their

concerns were heard and, where they are genuinely wrong, corrected. Timing for the HRI 2026 cycle:

rebuttal due ~12 Nov 2025 (see resources/official-source-map.md); confirm the length/format limit

in the current instructions (待核实).

Before writing: triage every point

For each concern across the three externals and two ACs, sort into:

• Misreading — the reviewer misunderstood something already in the paper. Correct it crisply,

quoting where it is (section/figure), without blaming the reviewer.

• Fixable in camera-ready — a clarification, an added analysis you already have, a missing

citation, a reframed claim. Promise the specific change and, where possible, give the result now.

• Real limitation you cannot fix now — a design choice, a sample bound, a construct-validity

concern. Acknowledge it honestly, argue why it does not sink the contribution, and scope the claim

accordingly. Do not pretend it away.

Then rank by decisiveness: which concern, if resolved, actually flips a reviewer or wins the

discussion. Spend your limited space there, not on the easy points.

Answer the HRI-typical critiques

HRI reviews cluster on study and interaction issues; have crisp answers ready:

• "Underpowered / N too small." Report your power basis, effect sizes with CIs already in the

paper, and — if applicable — that the observed effect is large enough to matter. Do not promise

"we will collect more data" (you cannot before camera-ready); argue the evidence you have.

• "Confound / demand characteristics." Point to the manipulation check, counterbalancing, or

controls already present; if a real confound exists, bound its plausible effect honestly.

• "Wizard-of-Oz not convincing / undisclosed." Clarify what was autonomous vs. wizard-controlled

and the wizard constraints/error logging; if you buried it, promise to foreground it.

• "Just a liking score, not behavior." Point to any behavioral/task outcome you measured; if the

claim overreached the measure, narrow the claim rather than defend the overreach.

• "Statistics questionable." Address multiple-comparison correction, the confirmatory/exploratory

split, and assumption checks; commit to a re-analysis in camera-ready if warranted.

• "Novelty / positioning." State the delta against the specific prior work cited, without

breaking anonymity (third person).

• "Ethics unclear." Confirm IRB/consent and (anonymized) deception/debriefing details.

Promise only what the camera-ready can deliver

The rebuttal's currency is credibility. Every promise should be something you can actually do in the

final version within the 8-page budget: rephrase a claim, add an already-computed analysis or effect

size, foreground a disclosure, add a citation, clarify a figure. Never promise a new study, new

data collection, or a result you have not computed — reviewers discount vague promises and remember

broken ones.

Structure and constraints

• Group by concern, not by reviewer, when multiple reviewers raise the same issue — answer it

once, well, and note it addresses R1/R3.

• Lead with the most decisive points; a tight limit means the last third may be skimmed.
• Be concrete and quantitative: quote the section, give the number, name the exact change.
• Stay within the length limit and any format rules; over-length rebuttals can be truncated.
• Stay anonymous — no author/institution names, no identifying links, no "as we showed in [our

other paper]" in first person.

• Professional tone. Thank reviewers briefly, never argue with their competence or tone; give the

sympathetic reviewer material to defend you in the discussion.

What not to do

• Do not concede your central contribution to sound agreeable — if the core claim is sound, defend it.
• Do not sprawl across every minor point and run out of room for the decisive one.
• Do not introduce a brand-new claim or result the reviewers had no chance to vet.
• Do not break anonymity to prove a point.

After the rebuttal

The 1AC opens an online discussion; you will not see it. Your rebuttal is the last input you

control before the PC meeting, so make it self-sufficient. If accepted (possibly with shepherding),

carry every promise into hri-camera-ready; if rejected, mine the reviews and re-route with

hri-topic-selection.

Output format

[Triage] concerns sorted: misreading / camera-ready-fixable / real-limitation
[Decisive points] the 2-3 objections the rebuttal must win, per reviewer
[Responses] each: correction or promised change, concrete + quantitative
[Promises] all deliverable in camera-ready within 8 pages? no new-study promises?
[Anonymity + length] third-person, within limit?
[Draft] <the rebuttal, grouped by concern, decisive-first>