When describing a CS paper, can it be assumed that the meaning of "tick" is known?
I've never heard those marks on the axes referred to as "ticks", though Wikipedia agrees with your usage.  Since Dave Clarke also didn't realise that's what you're talking about, I suspect that at least a sizeable minority of people aren't familiar with the term.

Why do you need to talk about the marks on the axes at all? Instead of saying "increase at tick mark '1e+02'" just say "increase at $x=100$" or whatever the variable is on that axis.  (Also, it's silly to use the notation "1e+02" for such a simple concept as 100.)  Your writing will be easier to understand if you talk about the data, rather than talking about the precise details of how you chose to represent it.