CAV Writing Style

Use this when revising the main paper. CAV papers are Springer LNCS chapters read by verification researchers, so they need a precise verification contribution stated on the first page and a formal guarantee a reviewer can check. The failure this skill prevents is a technically fine paper that reads like a systems demo or a heuristic with a benchmark table but no stated property.

Revision rules

• Lead with the verification contribution and its guarantee: the problem (what property, of what system), why current methods fall short, the contribution (technique and/or tool), what is formally guaranteed (soundness, completeness, an equisatisfiability/refinement claim), the benchmark evidence, and the scope.
• State the formal claim precisely. Name the property, the assumptions, and the theorem. A paper whose "contribution" is only "faster on benchmarks" with no guarantee reads as a tool note, not a Regular Paper.
• Give proofs their place. Key proofs go in the body; long proofs may go to a clearly-marked appendix — but reviewers are not obliged to read appendices, so the proof idea must be in the body (see cav-supplementary).
• Make benchmark claims falsifiable. Every empirical claim names the benchmark set (with revision), the baseline tools and versions, and the resource limits (time/memory) — adjectives like "significantly faster" without these are not evidence (see cav-experiments).
• State scope and limits as your own, not as a closing apology. Say which logics, system sizes, or property classes the method covers and where it stops. Over-claimed generality is the fastest way to lose a verification reviewer's trust.
• Maintain double-blind wording for Regular and Application papers: anonymize self-citations, the tool/solver name, benchmark paths, acknowledgements, and repository links. (Tool and Industrial papers are not anonymized.)

Verification-paper skeleton

Sentence-level rewrites

Correctness-and-scope discipline

[Guarantee]   name the property (sound? complete? terminating?) and the assumptions it needs
[Proof]       proof idea in the body; full proof in the body or a clearly-marked appendix
[Checkability] where possible, emit a witness/certificate a reviewer can independently check
[Scope]       state the logics/theories/system-sizes/property-classes covered — and the boundary
-> put the limit next to the claim, not only in a closing paragraph

Vignette: compressing a technique-plus-tool paper

A draft with a long preliminaries section, three theorems, and a sprawling evaluation: keep the motivating problem and the main soundness theorem with its proof idea in the body; move two supporting lemmas' full proofs and the per-instance benchmark table to the appendix/artifact with explicit forward references; keep the headline benchmark comparison (with limits) in the body. The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to answer "what is guaranteed, and how much faster/more capable is it, under what budget?" from the body alone.

Output format

[Writing diagnosis] clear / no-stated-guarantee / over-claimed / unfalsifiable-benchmarks / over-scoped
[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the contribution and its guarantee>
[Claim audit] <claim -> theorem or benchmark evidence -> where -> falsifiable? yes/no>
[Scope fix] <the boundary to state next to the claim>
[Anonymity edits] <tool/solver names / self-citations / benchmark paths to rewrite (if anonymized)>