ppopp-author-response

PPoPP Author Response

Write the rebuttal for the fixed author-response window (PPoPP 2026: 27–29 October 2025). This

is a short, word-capped, single written turn — as verified there is no guaranteed

revise-and-resubmit round to fall back on. Reviewers read it, discuss, and decide. Spend the budget

on the points that can change a verdict, answered with data, not adjectives.

What the window is and is not

• It is a 2–3 day window with a word cap; you cannot run a month of new experiments.
• It is not a debate forum or a place to relitigate taste. It is where you correct factual

misreadings and supply the specific number a reviewer said was missing.

• It stays double-blind: reveal no identity, name no cluster/grant, add no author-revealing

link.

Triage the reviews first

[Blocking + fixable]   a missing baseline you pre-ran; a scaling point you already have;
                       a misread correctness argument   -> answer these first, with data
[Blocking + not fixable in words]  a study-design gap needing new machine time
                       -> concede honestly, scope the claim down, or note it as future work
[Non-blocking]         wording, a citation, a minor clarification   -> one line each, or skip

Answer the reviewer who is closest to championing you and whose objection is concrete; a reviewer

who only questioned novelty rarely decides a systems paper.

The two questions you must be ready for

PPoPP rebuttals live or die on two recurring asks. Prepare for both before reviews arrive

(see ppopp-experiments), because the window is too short to generate the runs from scratch:

1. "Does it still scale at higher core counts / on another topology or GPU?" — Have the larger

core sweep or the second-machine run already measured. In the rebuttal, give the number:

"At 128 cores throughput is <X>; the curve stays linear to 96 and flattens at 112 due to memory

bandwidth, as we now quantify." A concrete point beats "we expect it to scale."

1. "How does it compare to baseline X / the state of the art [k]?" — Have the comparison ready.

"Against [k] on the same 2-socket node, our structure is <Y>× at 64 threads and matches at 4."

Promising to run an experiment "in the final version" does not move a PPoPP reviewer; a measured

number does.

Answering a misread correctness argument

If a reviewer misreads your linearizability or progress argument, correct it precisely: point

to the linearization point, the specific interleaving they worried about, and why your

synchronization (under the named memory model) handles it. Do not restate the whole proof — cite

the section and give the one clarifying sentence that dissolves the objection.

Writing mechanics

• Lead with the answer, then the evidence. "Yes — measured: <number>." Reviewers skim under

load.

• Quote the reviewer's ask in a few words so the mapping is unambiguous, then answer it.
• Number your responses to reviewer/point so the discussion can follow them.
• Fit the cap. Cut acknowledgements and restatement; every sentence should either supply a fact

or correct one.

• Concede what you cannot fix and say what you will do — a candid, scoped concession reads

better than an evasive claim, and reviewers reward honesty in the discussion.

What not to do

• Do not argue that a request is unreasonable; either answer it or scope the claim.
• Do not introduce a new claim the reviewers could not check — it invites suspicion, not credit.
• Do not leak identity: no lab name, no named machine, no personal repo link, even mid-argument.
• Do not spend words on non-blocking nits while a blocking scaling question goes unanswered.

Output format

[Window] author-response dates, word cap
[Triage] blocking-fixable / blocking-not-fixable / non-blocking — points sorted
[Scaling answer] higher-core / second-machine number ready and stated? yes/no
[Baseline answer] comparison to the named competitor ready and stated? yes/no
[Correctness fix] misread interleaving corrected precisely? yes/no
[Anonymity] no identity/machine/grant/repo leak? yes/no
[Cuts] what to drop to fit the cap