---

name: vldb-author-response description: Use when a PVLDB paper receives a revision verdict and the response package must be built, covering the one-shot revision rule, the three-month window, reading the reviewers' required-changes list, planning new experiments against the clock, and writing the change document that VLDB reviewers re-evaluate against.

VLDB Author Response

Use this when PVLDB reviews arrive — typically around the 15th of the month after your deadline — and the verdict is revise. PVLDB has no rebuttal phase before decisions: the reviews and the outcome land together, so the author-response genre at this venue is the revision package. You get exactly one revision, and up to three months to deliver it.

Read the verdict as a contract

A PVLDB revision request is written to be specific: reviewers state what the revision must contain. Treat that list as the acceptance test.

• Extract every required item into a numbered ledger before anyone starts editing; ambiguous requirements get a clarifying interpretation written down, not ignored.
• Separate required changes from suggested ones. Required items decide the outcome; suggestions earn goodwill when cheap.
• Estimate honestly whether the heaviest requirement — usually a new experiment or a stronger baseline — fits inside three months on your hardware. If it cannot, decide now between a scoped-down response and a withdrawal, because a failed revision consumes the only attempt.

Budgeting the three months

Weeks	Activity
1	Ledger built, requirements interpreted, infeasible items escalated
2-7	New runs, added baselines, corrected analyses
8-9	Text integration; every change traceable to a ledger item
10-11	Change document drafted; internal re-review against the ledger
12	Buffer for rerun failures; submit early, not at the wire

The same reviewers return. They remember what they asked for, and they check the ledger items first — new prose that dodges a required experiment is the canonical failed revision.

Writing the change document

• Open with a one-paragraph summary of what changed and where.
• Then answer requirement by requirement: quote the reviewer's ask, state what was done, and point to the exact section, figure, or table in the revised PDF.
• Where results moved against you, say so plainly and interpret the movement. Reviewers at a systems venue respect a measured regression explained; they punish one discovered.
• Do not smuggle in an expanded contribution. The revision is re-reviewed against the original claims plus the required changes — a rewritten paper restarts skepticism instead of resolving it.

Response skeleton

Summary of revision (5-8 lines)

R1.1 [quoted requirement]
  Done: <change made>
  Where: <section / figure / table>
  Note: <result movement, if any>

R2.3 [quoted requirement]
  Done / Partially done because <honest constraint>
  Where: ...

Judgment calls

• A requirement you believe is mistaken still gets an experiment or a careful argument with evidence — never a bare disagreement.
• If two reviewers conflict, satisfy both where possible; otherwise state the conflict explicitly and justify the path chosen.
• Nothing stops you asking the assigned meta-level contact (where the volume provides one) about genuinely uninterpretable requirements early — 待核实 the current escalation channel on the live guidelines.

Output format

[Verdict] revise (one-shot) / clarification needed
[Requirement ledger] <numbered items, required vs. suggested>
[Feasibility] fits window / at risk (item, reason) / infeasible
[Heaviest item] <experiment or analysis, est. weeks>
[Change-document status] <drafted sections / gaps>
[Submit-by] <own target, ahead of the 3-month limit>