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
| Section |
Job it must do |
Common failure |
| Intro |
Problem, inadequacy, contribution, the guarantee, benchmark preview, scope — first page |
Leads with "SMT/model checking is important," not a precise problem |
| Preliminaries |
The formal setting: logic, semantics, the property class |
Notation dumped without motivating the model |
| Approach |
The technique/algorithm, stated so it can be re-implemented |
Algorithm described too thinly to reproduce |
| Correctness |
The theorem(s) and proof idea; soundness/completeness |
A "clearly sound" claim with no argument |
| Evaluation |
Benchmarks, baselines, resource limits, per-instance data |
"Strong results" with no set revision or limits |
| Related work |
Delta-first positioning against the verification literature |
Citation catalog with no contrast |
Sentence-level rewrites
| Draft pattern |
CAV-safe rewrite |
| "Our tool is significantly faster." |
"solves N previously-timed-out instances and reduces mean time by X% on the fixed-revision under a 20-min/8-GB limit vs. " |
| "Our method is sound." |
"Theorem 1: the procedure preserves equisatisfiability under ; proof in §4 (full proof, App. A)" |
| "We evaluate on standard benchmarks." |
"We evaluate on the of <benchmark set, revision R>, listed in the artifact" |
| "Our approach scales." |
"runs to completion on instances up to <size/metric>; beyond that, " |
| "The solver handles all cases." |
Claim scoped to the logic/theory and property class actually supported |
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)>
1---2name: cav-writing-style3description: Use when revising a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) paper for a precise verification contribution on the first page, an explicit soundness/completeness statement, theorem-and-proof discipline in the LNCS page budget, fair benchmark claims, honest scope and limits, and double-blind wording for the anonymized categories.4---56# CAV Writing Style78Use this when revising the main paper. CAV papers are Springer LNCS chapters read by verification9researchers, so they need a **precise verification contribution stated on the first page** and a10**formal guarantee** a reviewer can check. The failure this skill prevents is a technically fine11paper that reads like a systems demo or a heuristic with a benchmark table but no stated property.1213## Revision rules1415- **Lead with the verification contribution and its guarantee:** the problem (what property, of what16 system), why current methods fall short, the contribution (technique and/or tool), **what is17 formally guaranteed** (soundness, completeness, an equisatisfiability/refinement claim), the18 benchmark evidence, and the scope.19- **State the formal claim precisely.** Name the property, the assumptions, and the theorem. A paper20 whose "contribution" is only "faster on benchmarks" with no guarantee reads as a tool note, not a21 Regular Paper.22- **Give proofs their place.** Key proofs go in the body; long proofs may go to a clearly-marked23 appendix — but reviewers are not obliged to read appendices, so the proof *idea* must be in the24 body (see `cav-supplementary`).25- **Make benchmark claims falsifiable.** Every empirical claim names the benchmark set (with26 revision), the baseline tools and versions, and the resource limits (time/memory) — adjectives27 like "significantly faster" without these are not evidence (see `cav-experiments`).28- **State scope and limits as your own, not as a closing apology.** Say which logics, system sizes,29 or property classes the method covers and where it stops. Over-claimed generality is the fastest30 way to lose a verification reviewer's trust.31- **Maintain double-blind wording** for Regular and Application papers: anonymize self-citations,32 the tool/solver name, benchmark paths, acknowledgements, and repository links. (Tool and33 Industrial papers are not anonymized.)3435## Verification-paper skeleton3637| Section | Job it must do | Common failure |38|---|---|---|39| Intro | Problem, inadequacy, contribution, the guarantee, benchmark preview, scope — first page | Leads with "SMT/model checking is important," not a precise problem |40| Preliminaries | The formal setting: logic, semantics, the property class | Notation dumped without motivating the model |41| Approach | The technique/algorithm, stated so it can be re-implemented | Algorithm described too thinly to reproduce |42| Correctness | The theorem(s) and proof idea; soundness/completeness | A "clearly sound" claim with no argument |43| Evaluation | Benchmarks, baselines, resource limits, per-instance data | "Strong results" with no set revision or limits |44| Related work | Delta-first positioning against the verification literature | Citation catalog with no contrast |4546## Sentence-level rewrites4748| Draft pattern | CAV-safe rewrite |49|---|---|50| "Our tool is significantly faster." | "solves N previously-timed-out instances and reduces mean time by X% on the fixed-revision <set> under a 20-min/8-GB limit vs. <tool vA.B>" |51| "Our method is sound." | "Theorem 1: the procedure preserves equisatisfiability under <assumptions>; proof in §4 (full proof, App. A)" |52| "We evaluate on standard benchmarks." | "We evaluate on the <division> of <benchmark set, revision R>, listed in the artifact" |53| "Our approach scales." | "runs to completion on instances up to <size/metric>; beyond that, <stated limit>" |54| "The solver handles all cases." | Claim scoped to the logic/theory and property class actually supported |5556## Correctness-and-scope discipline5758```text59[Guarantee] name the property (sound? complete? terminating?) and the assumptions it needs60[Proof] proof idea in the body; full proof in the body or a clearly-marked appendix61[Checkability] where possible, emit a witness/certificate a reviewer can independently check62[Scope] state the logics/theories/system-sizes/property-classes covered — and the boundary63-> put the limit next to the claim, not only in a closing paragraph64```6566## Vignette: compressing a technique-plus-tool paper6768A draft with a long preliminaries section, three theorems, and a sprawling evaluation: keep the69motivating problem and the main soundness theorem with its proof idea in the body; move two70supporting lemmas' full proofs and the per-instance benchmark table to the appendix/artifact with71explicit forward references; keep the headline benchmark comparison (with limits) in the body. The72test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to answer "what is guaranteed, and how much faster/more73capable is it, under what budget?" from the body alone.7475## Output format7677```text78[Writing diagnosis] clear / no-stated-guarantee / over-claimed / unfalsifiable-benchmarks / over-scoped79[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the contribution and its guarantee>80[Claim audit] <claim -> theorem or benchmark evidence -> where -> falsifiable? yes/no>81[Scope fix] <the boundary to state next to the claim>82[Anonymity edits] <tool/solver names / self-citations / benchmark paths to rewrite (if anonymized)>83```
brycewang-stanford