international-conference-on-computer-aided-verification

International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV)

Conference positioning

International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV) is a top computer-science conference venue for verification, model checking, SMT, theorem proving, synthesis, and formal methods tools. It rewards a verification paper with formal correctness and tool or benchmark evidence. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.

Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.

When to trigger

• The author names CAV / International Conference on Computer Aided Verification as the target venue.
• A manuscript in verification needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
• The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
• The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.

Scope & topic fit

• Core fit: verification, model checking, SMT, theorem proving, synthesis, and formal methods tools.
• Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
• The paper should explain why the result matters to CAV's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
• Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
• If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.

Venue-specific calibration

• Reviewer lens: Treat CAV as a formal verification venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
• Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
• Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: verification, model checking, SMT, theorem proving, synthesis, and formal methods tools.
• Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: verification, model, checking, theorem, proving, synthesis, formal, methods, tools, venue-specific, contribution, cavconference.
• Official anchor domain: cavconference.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.

Close-neighbor routing guardrail

• Route to CAV when the contribution is verification, model checking, theorem proving, formal

methods tooling, or verified systems with a clear correctness claim.

• Compare POPL/LICS for theory, PLDI for language implementation, SAT/CP for solver-specific

advances, and systems/security venues when verification is only an application.

What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings

• What CAV is. The International Conference on Computer Aided Verification — model checking, SMT, automated/interactive verification.
• vs LICS. LICS is logic in CS (foundational); CAV is the applied/algorithmic verification venue.
• vs POPL / ICFP. Those are programming-languages venues; CAV centers verification tools and theory.

CAV-specific routing detail

• Prefer CAV when the contribution is formal verification: model checking, SMT/SAT-assisted verification, theorem proving, program/hardware verification, synthesis, or verification tools.
• Route functional-language design to ICFP, logic foundations to LICS, and software-testing/analysis tools to ISSTA when verification is not the main claim.
• CAV evidence should make formal properties, soundness/completeness assumptions, tool architecture, benchmark suites, and counterexample or proof behavior explicit.

Method & evidence bar

• Use real programs, benchmarks, proofs, developer studies, or artifacts matched to the contribution type.
• For tools, report usability, scalability, false positives/negatives, and reproducible artifact details.
• For theory, provide precise definitions and complete proofs; for empirical SE, foreground validity threats.
• For CAV, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a verification paper with formal correctness and tool or benchmark evidence.
• Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.

Structure & house style

• State the software-engineering or language problem in terms of developer, program, proof, or runtime consequence.
• Keep examples small but nontrivial, then scale evidence to realistic code or formal benchmarks.
• Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
• The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
• Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.

Official-cycle checklist

• Open the live official venue page: https://cavconference.org/
• Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
• Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
• Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at CAV, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
• [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
• [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle formal verification papers and explains the technical delta.
• [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
• [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Toy examples with no evidence on real programs or benchmarks.
• Tool paper without artifact clarity or comparison to current systems.
• Empirical claims without validity analysis or reproducible data pipeline.
• Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
• A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving CAV reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses CAV's bar, compare against international-conference-on-software-engineering / acm-international-conference-on-the-foundations-of-software-engineering / ieee-acm-international-conference-on-automated-software-engineering / acm-sigplan-conference-on-programming-language-design-and-implementation. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>