CAV Topic Selection

Decide the venue and the category before drafting. CAV — the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification — is the flagship venue for computer-aided formal analysis of hardware and software systems: model checking, SMT and theorem proving, program analysis and synthesis, and their tools. Its papers are Springer LNCS chapters read by verification researchers, so reviewers reward a durable verification contribution with a stated guarantee, not a systems demo or an ML result with a verification label attached.

Two decisions, not one

At CAV you choose both a venue (CAV vs. its siblings) and a category (Regular vs. Tool vs. Application vs. Industrial). Get the venue right first, then the category — a strong tool filed as a Regular Paper, or a technique squeezed into a 10-page tool paper, wastes the fit.

Sibling-venue routing table

| Signal in your project | Better home | Why | |---|---|---| | A general verification technique/algorithm with a soundness/completeness result, mature enough for the flagship | CAV | Flagship scope; the Regular-Paper archetype | | Emphasis on tools, algorithms, and their construction/analysis, or you want the ETAPS calendar | TACAS | Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems; overlaps heavily but is a distinct venue | | Hardware-oriented or applied model checking, or a formal-methods-in-design focus | FMCAD | Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design | | Verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation with a foundations flavor, often earlier-stage | VMCAI | Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation | | Automated/interactive theorem proving or logic-focused | IJCAR / LPAR / ITP / CADE | Reasoning and proof communities | | The core is a programming-language semantics, type system, or PL analysis | POPL / PLDI / OOPSLA | PL venues; verification is a means, not the contribution | | The study is too long or too deep for the page limit | FMSD / JAR / TOCL / STTT | Journals with no conference page ceiling |

CAV and TACAS overlap the most; the honest tie-breakers are the calendar (CAV is annual in mid-year, often under FLoC or standalone; TACAS runs at ETAPS in spring) and community pull for your subarea. A strong paper is publishable at either — route to the nearer honest fit.

Contribution shapes CAV rewards

• Technique / algorithm with a guarantee — a new decision procedure, model-checking algorithm,

abstraction, invariant-synthesis method, or proof technique, with a stated soundness/completeness property and evidence it scales past prior methods (the CEGAR / interpolation lineage).

• Tool paper — a usable, downloadable verification tool (solver, model checker, prover, analyzer)

evaluated on standard benchmarks, with the engineering foregrounded (the CVC4 / Marabou lineage).

• New application domain — bringing a hard real problem into verification's scope with a real

technique (the neural-network-verification lineage).

• Application / case study / industrial experience — applying verification to a concrete system

and reporting what worked, what did not, and what generalizes.

The re-label and swap tests

Two quick tests sharpen a borderline verdict:

• Guarantee test: does your contribution come with a formal property (soundness, completeness,

an equisatisfiability or refinement claim)? If the "result" is only a benchmark score with no guarantee, it may be a tool note (TACAS) or a heuristic paper, not a CAV Regular Paper.

• Re-label test: could this paper be submitted to FMCAD or VMCAI unchanged and read as native

there? If its heart is hardware-design methodology or early-stage abstract interpretation, route accordingly; CAV rewards the general, flagship framing.

Category-selection cues (once CAV is chosen)

text
[Regular]      a technique/algorithm + proof + benchmark evaluation           -> 18 pages, anonymized
[Short Tool]   a downloadable tool; the contribution is the usable system     -> 10 pages, NOT anonymized
[Short App]    verification applied to a specific problem, technique-light     -> 10 pages, anonymized
[Industrial]   a real/industrial deployment experience or case study          -> 10 pages, NOT anonymized

If you have both a technique and a tool, the usual move is a Regular Paper that describes the technique with the tool as its evaluation vehicle — reserve the Tool Paper for when the system itself is the contribution.

Cheap reconnaissance before committing

text
[Scope]     scan the last two CAV programs (dblp, i-cav.org) for your subarea
            -> 3+ recent papers = a reviewer pool exists; 0 = opening or mismatch
[Benchmarks] is there a standard benchmark set (SV-COMP, SMT-COMP, HWMCC, VNN-COMP) reviewers expect?
            -> yes and you did not use it => reframe or add it before submitting
[Calendar]  compare the next CAV deadline with TACAS/FMCAD/VMCAI dates -> route to the nearest
            honest fit rather than idling a cycle

Decision procedure

text
[Audience]   who acts differently if the claim holds? -> verification-tool builders/users/theorists?
[Claim type] technique-with-guarantee / tool / application / industrial experience
[CAV vs sibling] both fit? -> choose by calendar, community pull, and hardware/PL/logic tilt
[Category]   technique+proof -> Regular; usable system -> Tool; applied -> Application/Industrial
[Verdict]    CAV <category> / sibling venue / journal, with a one-line reason

Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue or category decision wastes every later step. When the verdict is CAV, continue with cav-workflow for the calendar and cav-writing-style for the paper shape.