Accountability in Theory and Practice

Hi!

I've received this question (s.t.) via mail today, and I thought it makes sense to make the answer visible to all.

Some conferences give paper authors the chance to react to criticism and correct factual errors. In our mock conference, you have "authored" two papers (you should see yourself listed as one of the authors, one in each of the two categories "theory" and "practice"). You can chose any of those (but carefully, the other one is the one that you have to present).

A rebuttal is, first and foremost, a chance to correct a misunderstanding or to clarify questions raised in reviews. Typical case: a proof is making a step that is not sufficiently elaborated on. The reviewer remarks that she cannot follow this step, and asks why this should be the case. The author, in her rebuttal, gives a justification and promises to add it. Even more typical case: the reviewer complains about missing explanation for notation used in Section 10, and is then pointed to  Section 2, where it was indeed explained.

It is a fine line to walk in actual rebuttals, as they are supposed to only correct errors, but may not announce new results or debate a subjective interpretation. In the context of this seminar, however, this is not important: the purpose is to force you to read the reviews and the criticism they contain, so you start to scrutinize parts of the paper that you took for granted, and to argue for the paper from the perspective of the authors.

I hope that helps.

With kind regards, Robert

Hi!

The rebuttal phase has started, the deadline is Jul 17. I'll go on vacation after Jul 12, so if you want feedback, please send me your draft early enough, if I am the paper's "co-author". (*) Note that the rebuttal and the presentation should cover *different* papers, so your choice here determines what your talk is about. It might be the case that you want to write the rebuttal for a paper that does not have reviews. Should this be the case, write me (I know which paper that is, #23).

Cheers, Robert

(*) Wednesday evening is pretty save, anything later gets higher probabiity of not being answered.

Hi!

We are thinking of splitting the presentation days into an early and a late date, as there is a student, who is bound by an internship. This would be ok for us; maybe it is even nicer for you to arrange with your exams. Please check out the question on Askbot (see menu above) and let us know, if one of 18/07, 19/07, 26/08,27/8 is inconvenient for you, or if you cannot say yet, and for what reasons.

Also: feel free to use Askbot for content-related questions, now that it is activated anyway.

Cheers, Robert and Hamed

Hi!

We only received three reviews so far; maybe this was due to yesterday's problem with the conference system. (Which Hamed fixed as soon as we took notice -- dont be shy to report issues!)

We also only received a single draft to comment on before the review. In particular for the first reviews, our comment might be helpful to get you on the right track. So please, contact Hamed or me (whoever is "author" of the paper you are reviewing) to get Feedback on the draft.

To give you the opportunity to get feedback on your review until Friday, we will prolong the reviewing phase until Monday.

Cheers, Robert

Hi,

The authorship bidding is done. You should have received two emails about the papers that are assigned to you. The paper assignment is done automatically by HotCRP and we hope the result is fine with you :). The first review bidding phase is starting now, the deadline is next week on Wednesday, when you will be assigned a paper to review.

Cheers, Hamed and Robert

Hi!

Thank you for chosing this seminar!

The kick-off meeting is scheduled for 18.04.2019 12:20 - 13:00. We will discuss the procedure, how grading is done and lose a few words about the papers. The location will be announced soon, but it will most likely be at CISPA.

In case this appointment clashes with your schedule -- it is short notice, I admit -- please let us know as soon as possible. We will make slides available, though.

Last but not least: Hamed Nemati, Ph.D., will be instructing the seminar along side me. He is an expert on formal verification and looking forward to meet with you.

With kind regards, Robert