Cav submission

CAV Submission

Run this audit before uploading to the CAV submission portal. CAV research papers are published open access as Springer LNCS chapters, and the submission is judged by a two-stage review, so the category you pick, the LNCS format, and the anonymization rule for that category all have to be right before the deadline. Every number below was read from the CAV 2026 Call for Papers on 2026-07-09 via search renderings of the i-cav.org URLs (see resources/official-source-map.md); treat them as a one-cycle snapshot and reopen the live CFP first.

Pick the right category first

CAV 2026 solicits four categories, and the category sets both the page limit and the anonymity rule:

Category	Page limit (LNCS, excl. refs + appendix)	Anonymized?	Fits
Regular Paper	18 pages	Yes (double-blind)	A new technique/algorithm with a formal contribution
Short Tool Paper	10 pages	No	A usable, downloadable verification tool on standard benchmarks
Short Application Paper	10 pages	Yes (double-blind)	Applying verification to a concrete problem/system
Industrial Experience Report & Case Study	10 pages	No	A real-world/industrial verification experience

The anonymization split is unusual and cycle-volatile — verify it on the current CFP. The logic: a tool paper that hid its tool's name would be unreviewable, so tool and industrial papers are not anonymized; regular and application papers are.

Format and page budget

• LNCS llncs document class, single column, unmodified. This is the Springer path — do not carry an ACM acmart or an IEEEtran double-column habit across from a sibling venue.
• Page limits exclude references and appendices. A clearly marked appendix is allowed, but reviewers are not obliged to read it — so nothing that decides acceptance may live only in the appendix (see cav-supplementary).
• Margins, font, and spacing are fixed by llncs; recover space by editing, not by tampering with the template.

Double-blind sweep (Regular and Application papers)

For the anonymized categories, CAV runs double-blind review, and verification papers leak identity through tool names, repositories, and benchmark artifacts:

# Mechanical pass on an anonymized submission PDF and any artifact archive
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com/[a-z0-9-]+|gitlab|zenodo\.org|our (tool|solver|prover)|acknowledg|grant' | head
unzip -l artifact.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|\.DS_Store|/home/|/Users/' | head

The verification-specific leaks: a solver named after your group, a benchmark path revealing a cluster/username, a tool repository URL in the evaluation, and an acknowledgement of a grant that identifies the lab. Re-host anonymized artifacts behind an anonymizing service before upload. For tool and industrial papers, this sweep does not apply — the tool's identity is expected.

Artifact intent at submission time

CAV asks authors to declare artifact intent at submission — whether you plan to submit an artifact to the AEC if the paper is accepted — and this information is shared with reviewers. Decide early: an artifact-backed claim reads as stronger. Artifact evaluation itself is post-notification, invited, and not a condition of acceptance (see cav-artifact-evaluation).

Desk-risk triage

Finding at audit time	Severity	Real fix
Wrong category (tool work filed as Regular, or vice versa)	Mis-routed review	Re-file in the correct category before the deadline; the page limit and anonymity change
Main text over the page limit	Desk-reject-grade	Cut or move to the (optional-to-read) appendix; refs/appendix do not absorb body text
Non-LNCS template or altered llncs	Format violation	Recompile clean in llncs, recover space editorially
Identity leak in an anonymized (Regular/Application) paper	Anonymity violation	Re-anonymize PDF, tool name, and artifact; re-host
Anonymized a Tool/Industrial paper by mistake	Reviewability problem	These are not double-blind — restore tool identity
No artifact-intent declaration	Missing signal to reviewers	Set it in the portal; decide the AEC plan now
Same work under review elsewhere	Dual-submission exposure	Withdraw one venue; verify the current concurrent-submission wording

Final-week order of operations

1. Confirm the category and its page limit and anonymity rule against the live CFP.
2. Freeze the body early; the theorem/algorithm and the benchmark table are the argument.
3. Build the artifact and, for anonymized categories, its anonymized copy; set artifact intent.
4. Run the mechanical anonymity sweep on the final PDF and archive (anonymized categories only).
5. Fill every portal field — category, topics, conflicts for every co-author's institution — a day early; late conflicts are the classic midnight failure.
6. Confirm the portal (EasyChair or HotCRP — verify the live link) and re-download the uploaded PDF to confirm it is the file you meant.

Reverify each cycle

• Whether a separate abstract/registration deadline precedes the paper deadline (待核实 for 2026; only the paper deadline was confirmed).
• The per-category page limits, the anonymization matrix, and which LNCS template revision is required.
• The submission portal (EasyChair vs. HotCRP), two-stage-review mechanics, and dual-submission wording — all cycle-volatile.

Output format

[CAV submission status] ready / blocked / needs work
[Category] Regular / Short Tool / Short Application / Industrial — matches the contribution? yes/no
[Format] pages used (body), LNCS llncs compliance
[Anonymity] required for this category? yes/no -> clean / leaks: <where>
[Artifact intent] declared? AEC plan noted?
[Fix queue] <ordered, with owners and dates before the AoE cutoff>