--- name: hri-author-response description: Use when writing the single ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper rebuttal that responds to three external reviewers and two area chairs — triaging study-design and statistics critiques, correcting misreadings, promising only what a camera-ready can deliver, staying anonymous and within the length limit, and giving the online reviewer discussion reasons to raise scores. --- # 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 ```text [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] ```