Tacas topic selection

TACAS Topic Selection

Decide two things before drafting: is this TACAS, and which TACAS category. TACAS — Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems — is the ETAPS conference at the tool-and-algorithm end of verification: model checking, program analysis, SMT and decision procedures, testing and synthesis, and the systems that implement them. Its defining feature versus its siblings is that a usable, evaluated tool is a first-class contribution, backed by a mandatory artifact. A brilliant idea with no tool and no experiment can still be a research paper, but a paper that is really a benchmark ranking is a SV-COMP contribution, not a TACAS paper.

First cut: is this TACAS, or a sibling?

TACAS overlaps heavily with the other verification venues, so decide by emphasis and calendar, not by topic alone.

Signal in your project	Better home	Why
A tool or algorithm for constructing/analysing systems, with real experiments, ETAPS timing fits	TACAS	Tools-and-algorithms core; mandatory-artifact culture; LNCS open access
Deep new verification theory/algorithm, breadth of formal methods, larger page room	CAV	Closest sibling; broader FM flagship, different calendar and process
Principled study of verification/abstract-interpretation foundations	VMCAI	Verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation focus
Hardware / SAT-centric formal methods, industrial hardware verification	FMCAD	Its named center
Explicit-state / software model checking around the SPIN lineage	SPIN	Community and tooling match
A full journal-length treatment with proofs and extended evaluation	STTT / FMSD / a journal	No conference page ceiling; STTT is the TACAS-adjacent journal
A verifier to be run on the common task set and ranked	SV-COMP (at TACAS)	It is a competition entry, not a stand-alone tool paper

CAV is the trap. Many canonical tools (NuSMV, CPAchecker, Storm) debuted at CAV, not TACAS. Differentiate by TACAS's ETAPS context, its tool/tool-demo/case-study categories, its per-category page limits, and its artifact-as-first-class model — and check dblp before assuming a lineage.

Second cut: which of the four categories?

Your contribution	Category	Page limit	Note
A new algorithm, encoding, decision procedure, or theory with a correctness argument	Regular research	≤16	Double-blind; artifact voluntary
Applying existing methods/tools to a substantial real system, with lessons	Case-study	≤16	Single-blind; artifact voluntary
A usable tool realizing a technique, with an evaluation	Regular tool	≤16	Single-blind; mandatory artifact
A mature tool shown in operation, focused on usage/UI/workflow	Tool-demonstration	≤6	Single-blind; mandatory artifact

The category is a commitment: a research paper is judged on the idea and its soundness; a tool paper is judged on the tool and its runnable artifact; a case-study paper is judged on the realism of the system and the honesty of the lessons; a tool-demo is judged on a working demonstration in six pages. Pick the one whose bar your evidence actually clears.

Contribution shapes TACAS rewards

• Algorithm / reduction — a new way to construct or analyse systems with a soundness (and often completeness/complexity) argument (the BMC lineage).
• Tool — a downloadable, evaluated implementation others can point at their own inputs (the CBMC / Z3 lineage), now inseparable from a working artifact.
• Case study — a substantial application of verification to a real system that teaches the community what works and what breaks at scale.
• Competition-driven — participation in SV-COMP / VerifyThis that advances shared benchmarks and reproducible comparison.

The tool-vs-research and re-label tests

• Tool-vs-research test: if the paper's core would survive with the tool removed (an algorithm and a proof), it is a research paper; if the core is the working tool and its evaluation, it is a tool paper — and then the artifact is mandatory.
• Re-label test: could this be submitted to CAV/VMCAI/FMCAD unchanged and read as native there? If its heart is FM breadth or new theory depth, weigh those venues; TACAS rewards the tool-and-algorithm framing with reproducible experiments.

Cheap reconnaissance before committing

[Scope]   scan the last two TACAS proceedings (dblp, Springer LNCS) for your subarea
          -> several recent papers = a reviewer pool exists; none = mismatch or a CAV/FMCAD topic
[Category] find 2-3 recent papers in the category you plan to use; match their evidence depth
[Artifact] if tool/tool-demo, can you package a clean-VM artifact by the post-paper deadline? if
          not, the category is wrong for this cycle
[Calendar] compare the next ETAPS/TACAS deadline with CAV/VMCAI/FMCAD dates -> route to the
          nearest honest fit rather than idling a year

Decision procedure

[Is it TACAS?] tool/algorithm to construct/analyse systems + experiments? -> yes; else CAV/VMCAI/FMCAD/journal
[Competition?] a verifier to be ranked on common tasks -> SV-COMP, not a tool paper
[Category] algorithm+proof -> research; usable tool+eval -> regular tool; mature tool in use -> tool-demo;
          real-system application -> case-study
[Blind + artifact] research -> double-blind, voluntary artifact; tool/tool-demo -> single-blind, mandatory artifact
[Verdict] TACAS <category> / sibling venue / SV-COMP / journal, with a one-line reason

Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue-or-category decision wastes every later step. When the verdict is TACAS, continue with tacas-workflow for the calendar and tacas-writing-style for the paper shape.