Relative Termination via Dependency Pairs

[EN] A term rewrite system is terminating when no infinite reduction sequences are possible. Relative termination generalizes termination by permitting infinite reductions as long as some distinguished rules are not applied infinitely many times. Relative termination is thus a fundamental notion that has been used in a number of different contexts, like analyzing the confluence of rewrite systems or the termination of narrowing. In this work, we introduce a novel technique to prove relative termination by reducing it to dependency pair problems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first significant contribution to Problem #106 of the RTA List of Open Problems. We first present a general approach that is then instantiated to provide a concrete technique for proving relative termination. The practical significance of our method is illustrated by means of an experimental evaluation.Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF). We would like to thank Nao Hirokawa, Keiichirou Kusakari, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions in early stages of this work.Iborra, J.; Nishida, N.; Vidal Oriola, G.; Yamada, A. (2017). Relative Termination via Dependency Pairs. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 58(3):391-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-016-9373-5391411583Alarcón, B., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: A dependency pair framework for A $$\vee$$ ∨ C-termination. In: WRLA 2010, LNCS, vol. 6381, pp. 36–52. Springer (2010)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1–2), 133–178 (2000)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: A collection of examples for termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Technical report AIB-2001-09, RWTH Aachen (2001)Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Bachmair, L., Dershowitz, N.: Critical pair criteria for completion. J. Symb. Comput. 6, 1–18 (1988)Bonacina, M., Hsiang, J.: On fairness of completion-based theorem proving strategies. In: RTA 1991, LNCS, vol. 488, pp. 348–360. Springer (1991)Dershowitz, N.: Termination of rewriting. J. Symb. Comput. 3(1&2), 69–115 (1987)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. J. Autom. Reason. 40(2–3), 195–220 (2008)Geser, A.: Relative Termination. Dissertation, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik. Universität Passau, Germany (1990)Giesl, J., Kapur, D.: Dependency pairs for equational rewriting. In: RTA 2001, LNCS, vol. 2051, pp. 93–107. Springer (2001)Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R.: AProVE 1.2: automatic termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In: IJCAR 2006, LNCS, vol. 4130, pp. 281–286. Springer (2006)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency Pairs. J. Autom. Reason. 37(3), 155–203 (2006)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Dependency pairs revisited. In: RTA 2004, LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 249–268. Springer (2004)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Polynomial interpretations with negative coefficients. In: AISC 2004, LNAI, vol. 3249, pp. 185–198. Springer (2004)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool: techniques and features. Inf. Comput. 205(4), 474–511 (2007)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Decreasing diagrams and relative termination. J. Autom. Reason. 47(4), 481–501 (2011)Hullot, J.M.: Canonical forms and unification. In: CADE 1980, LNCS, vol. 87, pp. 318–334. Springer (1980)Iborra, J., Nishida, N., Vidal, G.: Goal-directed and relative dependency pairs for proving the termination of narrowing. In: LOPSTR 2009, LNCS, vol. 6037, pp. 52–66. Springer (2010)Iborra, J., Nishida, N., Vidal, G., Yamada, A.: Reducing relative termination to dependency pair problems. In: CADE-25, LNAI, vol. 9195, pp. 163–178. Springer (2015)Kamin, S., Lévy, J.J.: Two generalizations of the recursive path ordering (1980). Unpublished noteKlop, J.W.: Term rewriting systems: a tutorial. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 32, 143–183 (1987)Koprowski, A.: TPA: termination proved automatically. In: RTA 2006, LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 257–266. Springer (2006)Koprowski, A., Zantema, H.: Proving liveness with fairness using rewriting. In: FroCoS 2005, LNCS, vol. 3717, pp. 232–247. Springer (2005)Korp, M., Sternagel, C., Zankl, H., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool 2. In: RTA 2009, LNCS, vol. 5595, pp. 295–304. Springer (2009)Kusakari, K., Toyama, Y.: On proving AC-termination by AC-dependency pairs. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E84–D(5), 439–447 (2001)Lankford, D.: Canonical algebraic simplification in computational logic. Technical report ATP-25, University of Texas (1975)Marché, C., Urbain, X.: Modular and incremental proofs of AC-termination. J. Symb. Comput. 38(1), 873–897 (2004)Nishida, N., Sakai, M., Sakabe, T.: Narrowing-based simulation of term rewriting systems with extra variables. ENTCS 86(3), 52–69 (2003)Nishida, N., Vidal, G.: Termination of narrowing via termination of rewriting. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 21(3), 177–225 (2010)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, London (2002)Slagle, J.: Automated theorem-proving for theories with simplifiers commutativity and associativity. J. ACM 21(4), 622–642 (1974)Thiemann, R., Allais, G., Nagele, J.: On the formalization of termination techniques based on multiset orderings. In: RTA 2012, LIPIcs, vol. 15, pp. 339–354. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2012)Vidal, G.: Termination of narrowing in left-linear constructor systems. In: FLOPS 2008, LNCS, vol. 4989, pp. 113–129. Springer (2008)Yamada, A., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: Nagoya termination tool. In: RTA-TLCA 2014, LNCS, pp. 466–475. Springer (2014)Yamada, A., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: A unified ordering for termination proving. Sci. Comput. Program. 111, 110–134 (2015)Zantema, H.: Termination of term rewriting by semantic labelling. Fundam. Inf. 24(1/2), 89–105 (1995)Zantema, H.: Termination. In: Bezem, M., Klop, J. W., de Vrijer, R. (eds.) Term Rewriting Systems, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, chap. 6, vol. 55, pp. 181–259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003

Reducing relative termination to dependency pair problems

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_11Relative termination, a generalized notion of termination, has been used in a number of different contexts like proving the confluence of rewrite systems or analyzing the termination of narrowing. In this paper, we introduce a new technique to prove relative termination by reducing it to dependency pair problems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first significant contribution to Problem #106 of the RTA List of Open Problems. The practical significance of our method is illustrated by means of an experimental evaluation.Germán Vidal is partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-R and by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEOII201/013. Akihisa Yamadais supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Y757Iborra, J.; Nishida, N.; Vidal Oriola, GF.; Yamada, A. (2015). Reducing relative termination to dependency pair problems. En Automated Deduction - CADE-25. Springer. 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21401-6_11S163178Alarcón, B., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: A dependency pair framework for A $$\vee$$ C-termination. In: Ölveczky, P.C. (ed.) WRLA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6381, pp. 35–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1–2), 133–178 (2000)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: A collection of examples for termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Technical report AIB-2001-09, RWTH Aachen (2001)Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Dershowitz, N.: Termination of rewriting. J. Symb. Comput. 3(1&2), 69–115 (1987)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. J. Autom. Reasoning 40(2–3), 195–220 (2008)Geser, A.: Relative termination. Dissertation, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Passau, Germany (1990)Giesl, J., Kapur, D.: Dependency pairs for equational rewriting. In: Middeldorp, A. (ed.) RTA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2051, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R.: AProVE 1.2: automatic termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 281–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Polynomial interpretations with negative coefficients. In: Buchberger, B., Campbell, J. (eds.) AISC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3249, pp. 185–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Dependency pairs revisited. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 249–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Decreasing diagrams and relative termination. J. Autom. Reasoning 47(4), 481–501 (2011)Hullot, J.M.: Canonical forms and unification. CADE-5. LNCS, vol. 87, pp. 318–334. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)Iborra, J., Nishida, N., Vidal, G.: Goal-directed and relative dependency pairs for proving the termination of narrowing. In: De Schreye, D. (ed.) LOPSTR 2009. LNCS, vol. 6037, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Kamin, S., Lévy, J.J.: Two generalizations of the recursive path ordering (1980, unpublished note)Klop, J.W.: Term rewriting systems: a tutorial. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 32, 143–183 (1987)Koprowski, A., Zantema, H.: Proving liveness with fairness using rewriting. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.) FroCos 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3717, pp. 232–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Koprowski, A.: TPA: termination proved automatically. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) RTA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 257–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Korp, M., Sternagel, C., Zankl, H., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool 2. In: Treinen, R. (ed.) RTA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5595, pp. 295–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Lankford, D.: Canonical algebraic simplification in computational logic. Technical report ATP-25, University of Texas (1975)Liu, J., Dershowitz, N., Jouannaud, J.-P.: Confluence by critical pair analysis. In: Dowek, G. (ed.) RTA-TLCA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8560, pp. 287–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Nishida, N., Sakai, M., Sakabe, T.: Narrowing-based simulation of term rewriting systems with extra variables. ENTCS 86(3), 52–69 (2003)Nishida, N., Vidal, G.: Termination of narrowing via termination of rewriting. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 21(3), 177–225 (2010)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer-Verlag, London (2002)Thiemann, R., Allais, G., Nagele, J.: On the formalization of termination techniques based on multiset orderings. In: RTA 2012. LIPIcs, vol. 15, pp. 339–354. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2012)Vidal, G.: Termination of narrowing in left-linear constructor systems. In: Garrigue, J., Hermenegildo, M.V. (eds.) FLOPS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4989, pp. 113–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Yamada, A., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: Nagoya termination tool. In: Dowek, G. (ed.) RTA-TLCA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8560, pp. 466–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Yamada, A., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: A unified ordering for termination proving. Sci. Comput. Program. (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2014.07.009Zantema, H.: Termination of term rewriting by semantic labelling. Fundamenta Informaticae 24(1/2), 89–105 (1995)Zantema, H.: Termination. In: Bezem, M., Klop, J.W., de Vrijer, R. (eds.) Term Rewriting Systems. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 55, pp. 181–259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003

A Combination Framework for Complexity

In this paper we present a combination framework for polynomial complexity analysis of term rewrite systems. The framework covers both derivational and runtime complexity analysis. We present generalisations of powerful complexity techniques, notably a generalisation of complexity pairs and (weak) dependency pairs. Finally, we also present a novel technique, called dependency graph decomposition, that in the dependency pair setting greatly increases modularity. We employ the framework in the automated complexity tool TCT. TCT implements a majority of the techniques found in the literature, witnessing that our framework is general enough to capture a very brought setting

Termination Proofs in the Dependency Pair Framework May Induce Multiple Recursive Derivational Complexity

We study the derivational complexity of rewrite systems whose termination is provable in the dependency pair framework using the processors for reduction pairs, dependency graphs, or the subterm criterion. We show that the derivational complexity of such systems is bounded by a multiple recursive function, provided the derivational complexity induced by the employed base techniques is at most multiple recursive. Moreover we show that this upper bound is tight.Comment: 22 pages, extended conference versio

Incremental Mutual Information: A New Method for Characterizing the Strength and Dynamics of Connections in Neuronal Circuits

Understanding the computations performed by neuronal circuits requires characterizing the strength and dynamics of the connections between individual neurons. This characterization is typically achieved by measuring the correlation in the activity of two neurons. We have developed a new measure for studying connectivity in neuronal circuits based on information theory, the incremental mutual information (IMI). By conditioning out the temporal dependencies in the responses of individual neurons before measuring the dependency between them, IMI improves on standard correlation-based measures in several important ways: 1) it has the potential to disambiguate statistical dependencies that reflect the connection between neurons from those caused by other sources (e. g. shared inputs or intrinsic cellular or network mechanisms) provided that the dependencies have appropriate timescales, 2) for the study of early sensory systems, it does not require responses to repeated trials of identical stimulation, and 3) it does not assume that the connection between neurons is linear. We describe the theory and implementation of IMI in detail and demonstrate its utility on experimental recordings from the primate visual system

Modular Complexity Analysis for Term Rewriting

All current investigations to analyze the derivational complexity of term rewrite systems are based on a single termination method, possibly preceded by transformations. However, the exclusive use of direct criteria is problematic due to their restricted power. To overcome this limitation the article introduces a modular framework which allows to infer (polynomial) upper bounds on the complexity of term rewrite systems by combining different criteria. Since the fundamental idea is based on relative rewriting, we study how matrix interpretations and match-bounds can be used and extended to measure complexity for relative rewriting, respectively. The modular framework is proved strictly more powerful than the conventional setting. Furthermore, the results have been implemented and experiments show significant gains in power.Comment: 33 pages; Special issue of RTA 201

A Survey of Word Reordering in Statistical Machine Translation: Computational Models and Language Phenomena

Word reordering is one of the most difficult aspects of statistical machine translation (SMT), and an important factor of its quality and efficiency. Despite the vast amount of research published to date, the interest of the community in this problem has not decreased, and no single method appears to be strongly dominant across language pairs. Instead, the choice of the optimal approach for a new translation task still seems to be mostly driven by empirical trials. To orientate the reader in this vast and complex research area, we present a comprehensive survey of word reordering viewed as a statistical modeling challenge and as a natural language phenomenon. The survey describes in detail how word reordering is modeled within different string-based and tree-based SMT frameworks and as a stand-alone task, including systematic overviews of the literature in advanced reordering modeling. We then question why some approaches are more successful than others in different language pairs. We argue that, besides measuring the amount of reordering, it is important to understand which kinds of reordering occur in a given language pair. To this end, we conduct a qualitative analysis of word reordering phenomena in a diverse sample of language pairs, based on a large collection of linguistic knowledge. Empirical results in the SMT literature are shown to support the hypothesis that a few linguistic facts can be very useful to anticipate the reordering characteristics of a language pair and to select the SMT framework that best suits them.Comment: 44 pages, to appear in Computational Linguistic