Semantic Versioning Checking in a Declarative Package Manager

Semantic versioning is a principle to associate version numbers to different software releases in a meaningful manner. The correct use of version numbers is important in software package systems where packages depend on other packages with specific releases. When patch or minor version numbers are incremented, the API is unchanged or extended, respectively, but the semantics of the operations should not be affected (apart from bug fixes). Although many software package management systems assumes this principle, they do not check it or perform only simple syntactic signature checks. In this paper we show that more substantive and fully automatic checks are possible for declarative languages. We extend a package manager for the functional logic language Curry with features to check the semantic equivalence of two different versions of a software package. For this purpose, we combine CurryCheck, a tool for automated property testing, with program analysis techniques in order to ensure the termination of the checker even in case of possibly non-terminating operations defined in some package. As a result, we obtain a software package manager which checks semantic versioning and, thus, supports a reliable and also specification-based development of software packages

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

Symbolic execution as a basis for termination analysis

Program termination is a relevant property that has been extensively studied in the context of many different formalisms and programming languages. Traditional approaches to proving termination are usually based on inspecting the source code. Recently, a new semantics-based approach has emerged, which typically follows a two-stage scheme: first, a finite data structure representing the computation space of the program is built; then, termination is analyzed by inspecting the transitions in this data structure using traditional, syntax-based techniques. Unfortunately, this approach is still specific to a programming language and semantics. In this work, we present instead a general, high-level framework that follows the semanticsbased approach to proving termination. In particular, we focus on the first stage and advocate the use of symbolic execution, together with appropriate subsumption and abstraction operators, for producing a finite representation of the computations of a program. Hopefully, this higher level approach will provide useful insights for designing new semantics-based termination tools for particular programming languages. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Secretaria de Estado de Investigacion, Desarrollo e Innovacion) under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R and by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO/2011/052.Vidal Oriola, GF. (2015). Symbolic execution as a basis for termination analysis. Science of Computer Programming. 102:142-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2015.01.007S14215710

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

Detecting Decidable Classes of Finitely Ground Logic Programs with Function Symbols

In this article, we propose a new technique for checking whether the bottom-up evaluation of logic programs with function symbols terminates. The technique is based on the definition of mappings from arguments to strings of function symbols, representing possible values which could be taken by arguments during the bottom-up evaluation. Starting from mappings, we identify mapping-restricted arguments, a subset of limited arguments, namely arguments that take values from finite domains. Mapping-restricted programs, consisting of rules whose arguments are all mapping restricted, are terminating under the bottom-up computation, as all of its arguments take values from finite domains. We show that mappings can be computed by transforming the original program into a unary logic program: this allows us to establish decidability of checking if a program is mapping restricted. We study the complexity of the presented approach and compare it to other techniques known in the literature. We also introduce an extension of the proposed approach that is able to recognize a wider class of logic programs. The presented technique provides a significant improvement, as it can detect terminating programs not identified by other criteria proposed so far. Furthermore, it can be combined with other techniques to further enlarge the class of programs recognized as terminating under the bottom-up evaluation. </jats:p

Checking termination of bottom-up evaluation of logic programs with function symbols

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the bottom-up evaluation of the semantics of logic programs with complex terms. The presence of function symbols in the program may render the ground instantiation infinite, and finiteness of models and termination of the evaluation procedure, in the general case, are not guaranteed anymore. Since the program termination problem is undecidable in the general case, several decidable criteria (called program termination criteria) have been recently proposed. However, current conditions are not able to identify even simple programs, whose bottom-up execution always terminates. The paper introduces new decidable criteria for checking termination of logic programs with function symbols under bottom-up evaluation, by deeply analyzing the program structure. First, we analyze the propagation of complex terms among arguments by means of the extended version of the argument graph called propagation graph. The resulting criterion, called Gamma-acyclicity, generalizes most of the decidable criteria proposed so far. Next, we study how rules may activate each other and define a more powerful criterion, called safety. This criterion uses the so-called safety function able to analyze how rules may activate each other and how the presence of some arguments in a rule limits its activation. We also study the application of the proposed criteria to bound queries and show that the safety criterion is well-suited to identify relevant classes of programs and bound queries. Finally, we propose a hierarchy of classes of terminating programs, called k-safety, where the k-safe class strictly includes the (k-1)-safe class. Note: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).Comment: 36 pages, 7 figure

Termination of Narrowing: Automated Proofs and Modularity Properties

En 1936 Alan Turing demostro que el halting problem, esto es, el problema de decidir si un programa termina o no, es un problema indecidible para la inmensa mayoria de los lenguajes de programacion. A pesar de ello, la terminacion es un problema tan relevante que en las ultimas decadas un gran numero de tecnicas han sido desarrolladas para demostrar la terminacion de forma automatica de la maxima cantidad posible de programas. Los sistemas de reescritura de terminos proporcionan un marco teorico abstracto perfecto para el estudio de la terminacion de programas. En este marco, la evaluaci on de un t ermino consiste en la aplicacion no determinista de un conjunto de reglas de reescritura. El estrechamiento (narrowing) de terminos es una generalizacion de la reescritura que proporciona un mecanismo de razonamiento automatico. Por ejemplo, dado un conjunto de reglas que denan la suma y la multiplicacion, la reescritura permite calcular expresiones aritmeticas, mientras que el estrechamiento permite resolver ecuaciones con variables. Esta tesis constituye el primer estudio en profundidad de las propiedades de terminacion del estrechamiento. Las contribuciones son las siguientes. En primer lugar, se identican clases de sistemas en las que el estrechamiento tiene un comportamiento bueno, en el sentido de que siempre termina. Muchos metodos de razonamiento automatico, como el analisis de la semantica de lenguajes de programaci on mediante operadores de punto jo, se benefician de esta caracterizacion. En segundo lugar, se introduce un metodo automatico, basado en el marco teorico de pares de dependencia, para demostrar la terminacion del estrechamiento en un sistema particular. Nuestro metodo es, por primera vez, aplicable a cualquier clase de sistemas. En tercer lugar, se propone un nuevo metodo para estudiar la terminacion del estrechamiento desde un termino particular, permitiendo el analisis de la terminacion de lenguajes de programacion. El nuevo metodo generaliza losIborra López, J. (2010). Termination of Narrowing: Automated Proofs and Modularity Properties [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/19251Palanci

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