Response to Reviewers

What’s inside

• Starter files
• main.tex2.3 KB

  \documentclass[11pt]{article}
  
  \usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
  \usepackage{amsmath}
  \usepackage{xcolor}
  \usepackage{tcolorbox}
  \tcbuselibrary{breakable}
  
  % ---- Rebuttal macros ----
  % \reviewer            starts the next reviewer's section
  % \begin{point}...\end{point}   a reviewer comment, quoted in a shaded box
  % \begin{reply}...\end{reply}   your response, directly below it
  \newcounter{reviewer}
  \newcounter{point}[reviewer]
  \newcommand{\reviewer}{\stepcounter{reviewer}%
    \section*{Reviewer \thereviewer}}
  \newtcolorbox{pointbox}[1]{breakable, colback=blue!4, colframe=blue!45!black,
    title={#1}, fonttitle=\bfseries}
  \newenvironment{point}{%
    \refstepcounter{point}%
    \begin{pointbox}{Comment \thereviewer.\arabic{point}}\itshape}{\end{pointbox}}
  \newenvironment{reply}{\par\noindent\textbf{Reply:} }{\par\bigskip}
  
  \title{Response to Reviewers \\
    \large Manuscript ID [XXXX]: ``[Manuscript title]''}
  \author{}
  \date{\today}
  
  \begin{document}
  
  \maketitle
  
  \noindent Dear Editor, dear Reviewers,
  \medskip
  
  \noindent Thank you for the careful reading of our manuscript. We
  address every comment below; reviewer comments appear in shaded boxes,
  our replies follow each one, and changes in the revised manuscript are
  referenced by section.
  
  \reviewer
  
  \begin{point}
  The convergence claim in Section 3 is only supported empirically. Can
  the authors provide a formal argument?
  \end{point}
  
  \begin{reply}
  We agree. The revised Section 3.2 now proves convergence under a
  Lipschitz assumption: for step size $\eta < 1/L$ we show
  $f(x_{t+1}) \leq f(x_t) - \tfrac{\eta}{2}\|\nabla f(x_t)\|^2$, which
  gives the claimed rate. The empirical evidence is kept in Appendix B.
  \end{reply}
  
  \begin{point}
  Table 2 should report standard deviations across seeds.
  \end{point}
  
  \begin{reply}
  Done. Table 2 now reports mean and standard deviation over five seeds;
  the conclusions are unchanged.
  \end{reply}
  
  \reviewer
  
  \begin{point}
  The related-work discussion omits recent results on adaptive methods.
  \end{point}
  
  \begin{reply}
  Thank you for the pointer. Section 2 now discusses adaptive methods and
  clarifies how our assumptions differ from theirs.
  \end{reply}
  
  % Add more comment/reply pairs with \begin{point}...\end{point} and
  % \begin{reply}...\end{reply}, or ask the agent in the chat alongside
  % this document to draft replies from the review text.
  
  \end{document}
  

• Libraries and docs
• main.pdfprebuilt · 113 KBReplaced by the first recompile.

  Binary file, seeded as-is.

• main.synctex.gzprebuilt · 5.7 KBReplaced by the first recompile.

  Binary file, seeded as-is.