| name | cav-review-process |
| description | Use when reasoning about how a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) submission is evaluated, covering the two-stage reviewing process (two reviews then an early-reject filter, then two more reviews with a rebuttal), the partial double-anonymity by category, the accept/reject outcome, the optional non-conditional artifact evaluation, and how CAV differs from TACAS and FMCAD. |
CAV Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. CAV's process is a two-stage filter:
a paper must survive the first two reviews before it reaches a rebuttal and the second pair of
reviews. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a single-round rebuttal
conference is that a paper can be rejected before the rebuttal ever happens — so the first read
has to stand on its own.
Process model
- Submission and review run on the CAV portal (EasyChair or HotCRP — verify the live link) with
partial double-anonymity: Regular and Application papers are anonymized; Short Tool and
Industrial Experience papers are not.
- Stage 1: each paper receives two reviews. Papers with sufficient support proceed; the
rest are rejected early (CAV 2026 tentative first-round outcome ~4 Mar 2026).
- Stage 2: surviving papers receive two additional reviews and an author-response
(rebuttal) window (CAV 2026: 30 Mar - 2 Apr 2026).
- Outcome: accept or reject (CAV 2026 notification 17 Apr 2026). Accepted papers publish open
access in Springer LNCS, and authors may then submit an artifact to the AEC on its own
deadline.
- Reviewers weigh the significance of the verification contribution, the soundness of the
technique and its proofs, the fairness and reproducibility of the benchmark evaluation, the
novelty/delta against prior verification work, and clarity — and see the artifact-intent
declaration.
Reading a decision against the stages
| Signal | What it means | Author move |
|---|
| Early reject after stage 1 | Two reviewers saw a fatal gap (unsound claim, weak evaluation, thin delta) | No rebuttal exists; reframe or reroute (TACAS/FMCAD/VMCAI) — do not resubmit unchanged |
| Passed to stage 2 | The contribution is plausible; specific concerns remain | Use the rebuttal to fix factual misreadings and supply the missing number/proof detail |
| Accept | Contribution, soundness, and evidence hold | Camera-ready + optional artifact; do not reopen scope |
| Reject after stage 2 | A concern the rebuttal did not resolve | Address it substantively before any resubmission |
The strategic reading: write the submission so its soundness and headline benchmark result are
legible in the first two reviews. A contribution that only convinces after the rebuttal may never
reach the rebuttal.
How CAV differs from its siblings
- vs. TACAS: TACAS (at ETAPS) overlaps heavily in scope and also values tools, but is a distinct
venue with its own calendar and process; never assume they share a deadline or a review model.
CAV's identity is the flagship LNCS proceedings and the two-stage filter.
- vs. FMCAD: FMCAD centers formal methods in hardware/design; its review culture and page model
differ. A hardware-methodology paper may be read as more native there.
- vs. a single-round rebuttal conference: the early-reject stage is the key difference — plan for
it (
cav-workflow).
Who reads you
Expect verification-literate reviewers matched to your subarea (model checking, SMT, theorem
proving, program analysis, hardware or NN verification). They check whether the theorem actually
holds, whether the baselines and benchmarks are fair and pinned, whether the claim is scoped
to what was proved and measured, and — for tool papers — whether the tool is real and usable.
Vague algorithm descriptions and unpinned benchmarks get caught, not skimmed.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] category + topic tags -> reviewer pool and page/anonymity rules (largest lever)
[Stage 1] nothing to do but wait; the paper must defend itself
[Rebuttal (stage 2)] correct factual misreadings; supply a missing number, proof detail, or
benchmark clarification the reviewers can verify
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling flagship or a journal (FMSD/JAR)
A rebuttal moves borderline papers when it corrects a misreading of a theorem or supplies a
benchmark clarification a reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste or
promises unrun experiments.
Reading a review packet
Weight reviews before answering. A review that engages your theorem statement, checks your
assumptions, or questions a specific benchmark was read closely and will be read closely again — its
author is your likely advocate if the rebuttal holds. A review that only questions novelty has left
soundness and evaluation to the others; answer each reviewer on the axis they raised. Reviewers
often end with explicit questions; the rebuttal is scored heavily on whether each got a direct,
verifiable answer.
Misreadings to avoid
- Treating stage 1 as a formality — the early-reject filter is real; the first two reviews
decide whether a rebuttal ever happens.
- Treating the rebuttal as a debate — the PC decides; your response is evidence for an advocate,
not a closing argument.
- Assuming artifact evaluation gates acceptance — it is optional and non-conditional at CAV.
- Projecting a sibling's process — TACAS and FMCAD have their own models; do not carry them over.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / stage-1 / rebuttal / final / accepted / artifact
[Outcome so far] early-reject / passed to stage 2 / accept / reject, with the driving criterion
[Criterion map] each review point -> significance | soundness/proof | evaluation | novelty | clarity
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak (anonymized categories) / unsupported new claims / unrun promises
