CAV Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for a CAV submission. Replace every date with the current official timetable and work backward from the AoE paper deadline. CAV publishes open access in Springer LNCS, reviews in two stages (an early-reject filter, then a rebuttal), and runs an optional artifact evaluation after notification — plan for all three, not just accept/reject.

CAV is a conference with no standing editor-in-chief; the rotating leadership is the per-edition Program Chairs and Steering Committee. For CAV 2026 the Program Chairs are Anthony W. Lin, Eva Darulova, and Philipp Rümmer (verified 2026-07-09), and the venue is Lisbon, part of FLoC 2026. Chairs rotate yearly; re-check the organization page rather than carrying a name forward.

Milestones

• Venue + category fit: confirm CAV over TACAS/FMCAD/VMCAI and pick the category (Regular /

Tool / Application / Industrial) (cav-topic-selection).

• Evidence lock: freeze the theorem/algorithm, the benchmark set (revision pinned), the baseline

tools and versions, the resource limits, and the artifact contents.

• Submission: upload the LNCS-formatted PDF in the right category, anonymized if Regular or

Application, with the artifact-intent declaration set (CAV 2026: 28 Jan 2026 AoE).

• Stage-1 filter: each paper gets two reviews; weak papers are rejected early (tentative

first-round outcome ~4 Mar 2026).

• Rebuttal: papers passing stage 1 get two more reviews and an author-response window (CAV 2026:

30 Mar - 2 Apr 2026).

• Notification: accept/reject (CAV 2026: 17 Apr 2026); archive all reviews and versions.
• Artifact evaluation (optional): register and submit to the AEC on its own deadline (CAV 2026

artifact registration: 22 Apr 2026), pursuing Available / Functional / Reusable badges.

• Camera-ready: prepare the LNCS open-access final version and complete Springer metadata and

rights; present at the conference (CAV 2026: 26-29 Jul 2026, Lisbon / FLoC).

Backward plan from the submission deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Verification-paper milestone | |---|---| | 10+ | Technique/algorithm fixed; the soundness/completeness statement drafted | | 8 | Tool implemented and stable; benchmark set and baseline tools/versions chosen and pinned | | 6 | Full evaluation run under fixed resource limits; per-instance data and logs archived | | 4 | Full draft in llncs; proofs complete (in body or clearly-marked appendix); artifact assembled | | 3 | Internal mock review by a verification-literate reader; differential/soundness cross-check done | | 2 | Scope and limits sharpened; related-work delta tightened; page limit met | | 1 | Anonymity sweep on PDF and artifact (Regular/Application); artifact-intent decided | | 0 | Upload in the correct category via the live portal; re-download to confirm |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page, never to a previous cycle's calendar.

The two-stage cycle: plan for the early reject

CAV's stage-1 filter means a paper can be rejected before the rebuttal ever happens. Two planning consequences:

• The first two reviews must be able to defend the paper on their own. A contribution that only

becomes convincing after the rebuttal may never reach stage 2. Make the soundness and the headline benchmark result legible in the first read.

• Missing the annual deadline costs roughly a year at CAV. A sibling flagship (TACAS in spring,

FMCAD, VMCAI) may have a nearer date — factor that into routing rather than idling (cav-topic-selection).

Failure modes by stage

• Tool still unstable at week 6 forces a rushed evaluation nobody audited — the classic

reproducibility/soundness doubt in the making.

• Benchmarks or baselines unpinned means the comparison cannot be reproduced and the reviewer

discounts the numbers.

• Leaving anonymization to the final week (Regular/Application) is how a solver name or a

benchmark path leaks identity under double-blind review.

• Treating stage 1 as a formality and saving the strongest framing for the rebuttal forfeits the

paper before the rebuttal exists.

• Assuming artifact evaluation is required — it is optional and non-conditional at CAV; plan it,

but do not block the camera-ready on it.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the artifact (benchmarks, versions, seeds, resource limits) and another for

the anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF, the artifact, and (later) the rebuttal — a stage-2 review and any

camera-ready must quote them precisely.

Output format

text
[Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / submitted / stage-1 / rebuttal / accepted / artifact
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <category / page limit / anonymity / benchmarks+baselines / soundness / artifact>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>