tacas-review-process

TACAS Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. TACAS's process has three features that

surprise authors arriving from other venues: reviewing is blind by category, the decision for a

tool paper depends on a parallel artifact evaluation, and the whole thing runs in a **single

annual round** on the ETAPS schedule with a short rebuttal — not a rolling or multi-round journal

cycle.

Process model

• Submission and review run on EasyChair under the ETAPS joint schedule. Reviewing is

per-category: regular research papers are double-blind; **case-study, regular tool, and

tool-demonstration papers are single-blind**.

• Each paper is read by multiple PC members who weigh, for a research paper, the **soundness and

significance of the algorithm; for a tool paper, the tool's contribution and its working

artifact; for a case study, the realism of the system and the honesty of the lessons**.

• For regular tool and tool-demonstration papers, a mandatory artifact is evaluated by the

Artifact Evaluation Committee in parallel with the PC, and the artifact outcome **feeds the

acceptance decision** — a paper whose artifact does not work is in real jeopardy.

• There is a short rebuttal / author-response window before the PC finalizes decisions.
• Accepted papers publish in Springer LNCS, gold open access; badges earned by the AEC

(Available / Functional / Reusable) are printed on the title page.

Reading a decision against the category

| Category | What reviewers weigh most | Author move on a weak review |

|---|---|---|

| Research | Soundness of the algorithm/encoding; is the correctness argument right? | Correct a misread proof/step in the rebuttal; supply the missing lemma or example |

| Regular tool | Does the tool work and advance practice? Does the artifact reproduce the claims? | Fix/clarify the artifact story; show the benchmark comparison is fair |

| Case study | Is the system real and the evaluation honest? Are the lessons transferable? | Sharpen what generalizes; bound the threats to the lessons |

| Tool-demonstration | Is there a genuine, reproducible demonstration in six pages? | Clarify the demo path; ensure the artifact demonstrates what the text claims |

The strategic reading: for a tool paper, the artifact is part of the review — a great write-up

with a broken package still fails. Budget the artifact like a co-equal deliverable, not an

afterthought.

How TACAS differs from its siblings

• vs. CAV: CAV is the broader formal-methods flagship with more theory room and a different

calendar; TACAS's identity is the tools-and-algorithms emphasis, the four categories, and

the mandatory tool-paper artifact integrated into acceptance. Never assume a shared deadline,

page limit, or template — TACAS is LNCS via ETAPS.

• vs. a journal (STTT/FMSD): a journal offers revise-and-resubmit and no page ceiling; TACAS is

a single-round conference with a rebuttal, not an R&R. Route a long, proof-heavy treatment to the

journal.

• vs. SV-COMP: the competition ranks verifiers on a common task set and its results are reported

separately; a tool paper is peer-reviewed prose about a tool, judged on contribution and

artifact, not on a leaderboard position.

Who reads you

Expect verification experts matched to your subarea. For a research paper they will check the

soundness argument line by line; for a tool paper they (or the AEC) will try to **run your

artifact** and reproduce a headline result; for a case study they will probe whether the system is

representative. Vague algorithm descriptions and unreproducible tool claims are caught, not skimmed.

Where author leverage actually exists

[Before submission]  category choice + topic keywords -> reviewer match      (largest lever)
[Artifact (tool)]    a clean-VM package that reproduces the claims           (co-decides tool papers)
[Rebuttal]           correct factual misreadings, supply a requested number, clarify a proof step
[After reject]       no appeal; reroute to CAV/VMCAI/FMCAD or a journal, or return next TACAS cycle

A rebuttal moves borderline papers when it fixes a misreading or answers a concrete question; it

does not move papers by arguing taste, and it cannot repair a fundamentally broken artifact after

the fact.

Misreadings to avoid

• Thinking the artifact is post-acceptance for a tool paper — it is mandatory, parallel, and

decision-feeding.

• Anonymity confusion — only research papers are double-blind; do not anonymize a single-blind

tool paper, and do not deanonymize a research paper.

• Treating the rebuttal as a second submission — it is short and targeted; the paper as

submitted carries the argument.

• Projecting CAV's or last year's process — categories, dates, and artifact rules are set per

ETAPS edition.

Output format

[Process stage] pre-submission / under review / rebuttal / notified / accepted
[Category + blind mode] research (double-blind) / case-study|tool|tool-demo (single-blind)
[Decision drivers] soundness | tool+artifact | case realism | demo reproducibility
[Artifact status] (tool/tool-demo) reproduces claims on clean VM? yes/no
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] wrong-category anonymity error / unrunnable artifact / unsupported new claims in rebuttal