---

name: aistats-author-response description: Use when drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.

AISTATS Author Response

Use this after AISTATS reviews are released. Reopen the current OpenReview instructions and author-discussion policy before drafting because response mechanics are cycle-specific.

Triage

• Answer concerns that affect correctness, novelty, statistical validity, clarity, reproducibility, or fit for AISTATS.
• Use existing submitted evidence: paper sections, appendices, supplementary material, theorem statements, experiments, checklist entries, and code/data descriptions.
• Keep the reply anonymous. Do not reveal institution, authorship, grants, private URLs, or repository ownership.
• Treat discussion as clarification, not revision. Do not depend on uploading a revised paper or new supplement unless current instructions explicitly allow it.
• If current rules prohibit links, do not use URLs in the discussion. AISTATS 2026 author-reviewer discussion was text-only and links were not allowed.
• Correct factual errors first, then address requests for missing comparisons, uncertainty estimates, proofs, or hyperparameters.

Drafting pattern

1. State the decision-critical correction or concession.
2. Point to exact submitted evidence.
3. Explain the statistical or theoretical consequence.
4. Promise a camera-ready wording fix only if it does not add unsupported new claims.

Statistician-reviewer pushback patterns

Pushback	What it signals	AISTATS-ready fix
"Assumption A3 seems strong"	The reviewer traced the proof chain	Point to where A3 is verified, weakened, or shown necessary; never dismiss it as standard without a citation
"The experiments violate the theorem conditions"	Theory-experiment mismatch spotted	Identify which conclusions survive misspecification and cite the robustness simulation that shows it
"Observed rates do not match the bound"	The reviewer compared empirical slopes against theory	Reference the log-log plot, or explain the constant-dominated regime at the tested sample sizes
"Comparison with the classical statistical method is missing"	Statistics-literature gap	Anchor to the appendix comparison, or concede and scope a camera-ready clarification

Response micro-example

Reviewer objection: the minimax claim hides its dependence on dimension d. Reply skeleton:

1. Concede that the d-dependence appears only in the appendix constant.
2. Quote the exact constant from Theorem 2 so the reviewer need not search.
3. Note that the simulation at d = 100 in Figure 4 follows the predicted scaling.
4. Offer one camera-ready sentence making the dependence explicit in the main text.

Discussion-phase calibration

• One decision-critical point per reviewer beats exhaustive replies; AISTATS meta-reviewers read for whether the central statistical objection was actually resolved.
• Never paste new theorem statements or fresh proofs into the discussion box; sketch the argument and anchor it in submitted material only.
• Respond early in the window — AISTATS discussion periods are short and reviewers who reply once rarely reply twice.
• Length and formatting norms vary by cycle; recheck the current discussion instructions before sending anything.

Output format

[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / statistical validity / clarity / reproducibility
[Draft response] <AISTATS-ready anonymous text>
[Evidence anchor] <paper/appendix/supplement item>
[Forbidden content removed] <links, identity leaks, new unsupported claims>