CAV Reproducibility

Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. In computer-aided verification, reproducibility is not a courtesy — a benchmark result is only meaningful relative to a fixed benchmark set, pinned tool versions, and a stated resource budget, and a soundness claim is only credible if it ships a checkable witness. The goal is that a competent reader could rerun your evaluation and re-check your correctness claims and reach your conclusions.

Evidence map

• Map each theorem, technique claim, and reported benchmark number to a verifiable location — a

proof (body or appendix), a script in the artifact, or a table regenerated from logged runs.

• For techniques, give enough of the algorithm, parameters, and encoding that a reader could

re-implement or rerun it.

• For benchmark evaluations, report the exact benchmark set and revision, the baseline tools

and versions, the resource limits (per-instance time and memory), the hardware and core count, and the number of runs.

• For soundness claims, emit a certificate/witness (unsat proof, DRAT, an SV-COMP-style

witness, an Isabelle/Coq script) and an independent checker — a bare "verified" verdict is not reproducible evidence.

• Keep the paper and the artifact consistent: a number in the PDF that no script regenerates is

the contradiction reviewers read as carelessness.

The reproducibility failure modes CAV reviewers know

| Claim in the paper | Weak answer | CAV-ready answer | |---|---|---| | "Faster than solver X" | "X was slower in our tests" | X vA.B, its documented config, same time/memory limit, same hardware; per-instance data in the artifact | | "Solves N hard instances" | "on standard benchmarks" | The named division of set <revision R>, the exact instance list, the fetch/pin in the artifact | | "Our result is sound/UNSAT" | asserted | The unsat proof + a bundled independent checker that accepts it | | "Randomized search finds it" | one lucky run | Fixed seed(s), number of runs, variance reported | | "Scales to large designs" | "large" | The size metric and the largest instance run, with the timeout that bounds it |

Provenance and configuration pinning

text
[Benchmarks] pin the set + revision (SV-COMP/SMT-COMP/HWMCC/VNN-COMP subset); archive the instance
             list and the fetch script, not just "the standard benchmarks"
[Tools]      record exact versions (yours and every baseline), build flags, and the commit/tag
[Limits]     state per-instance wall-clock and memory limits, core count, and the hardware/CPU
[Randomness] log seeds for portfolio/stochastic components; say what is and is not deterministic
[Witnesses]  ship proof certificates + an independent checker for every soundness/UNSAT claim
[Runs]       state the number of repetitions and how variance/timeouts were handled

Degrees of reproducibility (state the one you achieved)

• Turnkey: one documented command reruns a benchmark subset and regenerates a table/figure from

logged data (and re-checks the witnesses).

• Scripted: scripts exist but require documented manual steps, a large external benchmark

download, or a long (multi-day) full run.

• Descriptive: prose detailed enough that a competent reader could rebuild the evaluation.

For CAV, aim turnkey for anything a reviewer might rerun quickly (a solver on a small bundled subset, a witness check) and scripted-with-clear-instructions for a full multi-day benchmark sweep. Stating the achieved level honestly beats promising turnkey behavior that fails on a clean machine.

Vignette: a portfolio-solver evaluation

Consider a paper claiming a portfolio SMT technique is faster and stays sound. Its reproducibility spine: the solver pinned to a commit with build flags; each baseline pinned to a released version and its documented configuration; the benchmark division pinned to a revision with an archived instance list; a uniform per-instance time/memory limit and stated hardware; logged seeds and repetition count; a differential check against a trusted solver on all verdicts (no disagreements) plus unsat proofs with a bundled checker; and analysis scripts that turn the logs into the paper's tables — with one honest sentence about the parts (a proprietary hardware benchmark, say) that cannot be shared and why.

Consistency and camera-ready pass

• Before submission: every benchmark number traces to a logged run in the artifact; every soundness

claim has a checkable witness; the artifact is anonymized for Regular/Application categories.

• Before camera-ready: swap anonymized links for a permanent, DOI-issuing archive, and align the

artifact with the AEC badges you are pursuing (cav-artifact-evaluation).

Output format

text
[Claim inventory] <claim -> proof/witness or logged benchmark run>
[Benchmark provenance] set+revision / baseline versions / limits / hardware — pinned? yes/no
[Soundness evidence] witness + independent checker present? yes/no
[Reproducibility level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive, stated honestly
[Paper fixes] <must appear in the PDF>
[Artifact fixes] <additions before upload>