Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting

[EN] Given a (Conditional) Rewrite System R and terms s and t, we consider the following problem: is there a substitution a instantiating the variables in s and t such that the reachability test sigma(s) -> *(R) sigma(t) succeeds? If such a substitution does not exist, we say that the problem is infeasible; otherwise, we call it feasible. Similarly, we can consider reducibility, involving a single rewriting step. In term rewriting, a number of important problems involve such infeasibility tests (e.g., confluence and termination analysis). We show how to recast infeasibility tests into the problem of finding a model of a set of (first-order) sentences representing the operational semantics of R together with some additional sentences representing the considered property which is formulated as an infeasibility test. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Partially supported by the EU (FEDER) which is co-funding the project TIN2015-69175-C4-1-R, Spanish MINECO project TIN2015-69175-C4-1-R and Generalitat Valenciana (GV) project PROMETEOII/2015/013.Lucas Alba, S.; Gutiérrez Gil, R. (2018). Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting. Information Processing Letters. 136:90-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2018.04.002S909513

The 2D Dependency Pair Framework for Conditional Rewrite Systems¿Part II: Advanced Processors and Implementation Techniques

[EN] Proving termination of programs in `real-life¿ rewriting-based languages like CafeOBJ, Haskell, Maude, etc., is an important subject of research. To advance this goal, faithfully cap- turing the impact in the termination behavior of the main language features (e.g., conditions in program rules) is essential. In Part I of this work, we have introduced a 2D Dependency Pair Framework for automatically proving termination properties of Conditional Term Rewriting Systems. Our framework relies on the notion of processor as the main practical device to deal with proofs of termination properties of conditional rewrite systems. Processors are used to decompose and simplify the proofs in a divide and conquer approach. With the basic proof framework defined in Part I, here we introduce new processors to further improve the abil- ity of the 2D Dependency Pair Framework to deal with proofs of termination properties of conditional rewrite systems. We also discuss relevant implementation techniques to use such processors in practice.Partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and projects RTI2018-094403-B-C32, PROMETEO/2019/098, SP20180225. Jose Meseguer was supported by grants NSF CNS 13-19109 and NRL N00173-17-1-G002. Salvador Lucas' research was partly developed during a sabbatical year at the UIUC.Lucas Alba, S.; Meseguer, J.; Gutiérrez Gil, R. (2020). The 2D Dependency Pair Framework for Conditional Rewrite Systems¿Part II: Advanced Processors and Implementation Techniques. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 64(8):1611-1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-020-09542-3S16111662648Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1–2), 133–178 (2000)Alarcón, B., Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Proving termination properties with MU-TERM. In: Proceedings of AMAST’10, LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 201–208 (2011)Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and all That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Barwise, J.: An introduction to first-order logic. In: Barwise, J. (ed.) Handbook of Mathematical Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1977)Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude—A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS 4350, Springer, New York (2007)Contejean, E., Marché, C., Tomás, A.-P., Urbain, X.: Mechanically proving termination using polynomial interpretations. J. Autom. Reason. 34(4), 325–363 (2006)Dershowitz, N.: A note on simplification orderings. Inf. Process. Lett. 9(5), 212–215 (1979)Durán, F., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: MTT: the Maude termination tool (system description). In: Proceedings of IJCAR’08, LNAI, vol. 5195, pp. 313–319 (2008)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. J. Autom. Reason. 40(2–3), 195–220 (2008)Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R.: AProVE 1.2: Automatic Termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In: Proceeding of IJCAR’06, LNAI, vol. 4130, pp. 281–286 (2006)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: The dependency pair framework: combining techniques for automated termination proofs. In: Proceedings of LPAR’04, LNAI, vol. 3452, pp. 301–331 (2004)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reason. 37(3), 155–203 (2006)Goguen, J., Meseguer, J.: Models and equality for logical programming. In: Proceedings of TAPSOFT’87, LNCS, vol. 250, pp. 1–22 (1987)Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Automatic generation of logical models with AGES. In: Proceedings of CADE 2019, LNCS, vol. 11716, pp. 287–299 (2019). Tool page: http://zenon.dsic.upv.es/ages/Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Dependency pairs revisited. In: Proceedings of RTA’04, LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 249–268 (2004)Hodges, W.: Elementary predicate logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 1, pp. 1–131. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1983)Lankford, D.S.: On proving term rewriting systems are noetherian. Technical Report, Louisiana Technological University, Ruston, LA (1979)Lucas, S.: Using Well-founded relations for proving operational termination. J. Autom. Reason. to appear (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09514-2Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Automatic synthesis of logical models for order-sorted first-order theories. J. Autom. Reason. 60(4), 465–501 (2018)Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting. Inf. Process. Lett. 136, 90–95 (2018)Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 95, 446–453 (2005)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Models for logics and conditional constraints in automated proofs of termination. In: Proceedings of AISC’14, LNAI, vol. 8884, pp. 9–20 (2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: 2D Dependency pairs for proving operational termination of CTRSs. In: Escobar, S., (ed) Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and its Applications, WRLA’14, LNCS, vol. 8663, pp. 195–212 (2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Dependency pairs for proving termination properties of conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 86, 236–268 (2017)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Normal forms and normal theories in conditional rewriting. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 85(1), 67–97 (2016)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: Extending the 2D DP framework for conditional term rewriting systems. In: Selected Papers from LOPSTR’14, LNCS, vol. 8981, pp. 113–130 (2015)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: The 2D dependency pair framework for conditional rewrite systems. Part I: Definition and basic processors. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 96, 74–106 (2018)McCune, W.: Prover9 & Mace4. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/ (2005–2010)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, New York (2002)Schernhammer, F., Gramlich, B.: Characterizing and proving operational termination of deterministic conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 79, 659–688 (2010)Sternagel, T., Middeldorp, A.: Conditional confluence (system description). In: Proceedings of RTA-TLCA’14, LNCS, vol. f8560, pp. 456–465 (2014)Sternagel, T., Middeldorp, A.: Infeasible conditional critical pairs. In: Proceedings of IWC’15, pp. 13–18 (2014)Thiemann, R.: The DP Framework for Proving Termination of Term Rewriting. PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Technical Report AIB-2007-17 (2007)Thiemann, R., Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Improved modular termination proofs using dependency pairs. In: Proceedings of IJCAR’04, LNAI, vol. 3097, pp. 75–90 (2004)Wang, H.: Logic of many-sorted theories. J. Symb. Log. 17(2), 105–116 (1952

Using Well-Founded Relations for Proving Operational Termination

[EN] In this paper, we study operational termination, a proof theoretical notion for capturing the termination behavior of computational systems. We prove that operational termination can be characterized at different levels by means of well- founded relations on specific formulas which can be obtained from the considered system. We show how to obtain such well-founded relations from logical models which can be automatically generated using existing tools.Partially supported by the EU (FEDER), Projects TIN2015-69175-C4-1-R, and GV PROMETEOII/2015/013.Lucas Alba, S. (2020). Using Well-Founded Relations for Proving Operational Termination. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 64(2):167-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09514-2S167195642Alarcón, B., Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Proving termination properties with MU-TERM. In: Proceedings of AMAST’10, LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 201–208, Springer (2011)Aguirre, L., Martí-Oliet, N., Palomino, M., Pita, I.: Sentence-normalized conditional narrowing modulo in rewriting logic and Maude. J. Automat. Reason. 60(4), 421–463 (2018)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Proving innermost normalisation automatically. In: Proceedings of RTA’97, LNCS, vol. 1232, pp. 157–171, Springer, Berlin (1997)Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1–2), 133–178 (2000)Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude—A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350, Springer (2007)Durán, F., Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Methods for proving termination of rewriting-based programming languages by transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 248, 93–113 (2009)Durán, F., Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J., Urbain, X.: Proving operational termination of membership equational programs. High. Order Symb. Comput. 21(1–2), 59–88 (2008)Falke, S., Kapur, D.: Operational termination of conditional rewriting with built-in numbers and semantic data structures. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 237, 75–90 (2009)Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. Math. Asp. Comput. Sci. 19, 19–32 (1967)Giesl, J., Arts, T.: Verification of Erlang processes by dependency pairs. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 12, 39–72 (2001)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reason. 37(3), 155–203 (2006)Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: The dependency pair framework: combining techniques for automated termination proofs. In: Proceedings of LPAR’04, LNAI, vol. 3452, pp. 301–331 (2004)Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R.: AProVE 1.2: automatic termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In: Proceedings of IJCAR’06, LNAI, vol. 4130, pp. 281–286 (2006)Goguen, J., Meseguer, J.: Models and equality for logical programming. In: Proceedings of TAPSOFT’87, LNCS, vol. 250, pp. 1–22 (1987)Goguen, J., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted algebra I: equational deduction for multiple inheritance, overloading, exceptions and partial operations. Theor. Comput. Sci. 105, 217–273 (1992)Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Reinoso, P.: A tool for the automatic generation of logical models of order-sorted first-order theories. In: Proceedings of PROLE’16, pp. 215–230 (2016)Hodges, W.: Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Korp, M., Sternagel, C., Zankl, H., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool 2. In: Proceedings of RTA 2009, LNCS, vol. 5595, pp. 295–304 (2009)Lalement, R.: Computation as Logic. Masson-Prentice Hall International, Paris (1993)Lucas, S.: Context-sensitive rewriting strategies. Inf. Comput. 178(1), 294–343 (2002)Lucas, S.: Use of logical models for proving operational termination in general logics. In: Selected Papers from WRLA’16, LNCS, vol. 9942, pp. 1–21 (2016)Lucas, S.: Directions of operational termination. In: Proceedings of PROLE’18. http://hdl.handle.net/11705/PROLE/2018/009 (2018). Accessed 9 Feb 2019Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Automatic synthesis of logical models for order-sorted first-order theories. J. Autom. Reason. 60(4), 465–501 (2018)Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting. Inf. Process. Lett. 136, 90–95 (2018)Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 95, 446–453 (2005)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Dependency pairs for proving termination properties of conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 86, 236–268 (2017)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Proving operational termination of declarative programs in general logics. In: Proceedings of PPDP’14, pp. 111–122. ACM Digital Library (2014)McCune, W.: Prover9 & Mace4. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/ (2005–2010). Accessed 9 Feb 2019Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 4th edn. Chapman & Hall, London (1997)Meseguer, J.: General logics. In: Logic Colloquium’87, pp. 275–329 (1989)O’Donnell, M.J.: Equational Logic as a Programming Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, Berlin (2002)Prawitz, D.: Natural Deduction. A Proof Theoretical Study. Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965. Reprinted by Dover Publications (2006)Rosu, G., Stefanescu, A., Ciobaca, S., Moore, B.M.: One-path reachability logic. In: Proceedings of LICS 2013, pp. 358–367. IEEE Press (2013)Shapiro, S.: Foundations Without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1991)Schernhammer, F., Gramlich, B.: Characterizing and proving operational termination of deterministic conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 79, 659–688 (2010)Serbanuta, T., Rosu, G.: Computationally equivalent elimination of conditions. In: Proceedings of RTA’06, LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 19–34. Springer, Berlin (2006)Turing, A.M.: Checking a large routine. In: Report of a Conference on High Speed Automatic Calculating Machines, Univ. Math. Lab., Cambridge, pp. 67–69 (1949

Automatically Proving and Disproving Feasibility Conditions

[EN] In the realm of term rewriting, given terms s and t, a reachability condition s>>t is called feasible if there is a substitution O such that O(s) rewrites into O(t) in zero or more steps; otherwise, it is called infeasible. Checking infeasibility of (sequences of) reachability conditions is important in the analysis of computational properties of rewrite systems like confluence or (operational) termination. In this paper, we generalize this notion of feasibility to arbitrary n-ary relations on terms defined by first-order theories. In this way, properties of computational systems whose operational semantics can be given as a first-order theory can be investigated. We introduce a framework for proving feasibility/infeasibility, and a new tool, infChecker, which implements it.Supported by EU (FEDER), and projects RTI2018-094403-B-C32, PROMETEO/2019/098, and SP20180225. Also by INCIBE program "Ayudas para la excelencia de los equipos de investigación avanzada en ciberseguridad" (Raul Gutiérrez).Gutiérrez Gil, R.; Lucas Alba, S. (2020). Automatically Proving and Disproving Feasibility Conditions. Springer Nature. 416-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51054-1_27S416435Andrianarivelo, N., Réty, P.: Over-approximating terms reachable by context-sensitive rewriting. In: Bojańczyk, M., Lasota, S., Potapov, I. (eds.) RP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9328, pp. 128–139. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24537-9_12Dershowitz, N.: Termination of rewriting. J. Symb. Comput. 3(1/2), 69–116 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-7171(87)80022-6Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9057-7Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Models and equality for logical programming. In: Ehrig, H., Kowalski, R., Levi, G., Montanari, U. (eds.) TAPSOFT 1987. LNCS, vol. 250, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0014969Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Automatic generation of logical models with AGES. In: Fontaine, P. (ed.) CADE 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11716, pp. 287–299. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29436-6_17Kojima, Y., Sakai, M.: Innermost reachability and context sensitive reachability properties are decidable for linear right-shallow term rewriting systems. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) RTA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5117, pp. 187–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70590-1_13Kojima, Y., Sakai, M., Nishida, N., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: Context-sensitive innermost reachability is decidable for linear right-shallow term rewriting systems. Inf. Media Technol. 4(4), 802–814 (2009)Kojima, Y., Sakai, M., Nishida, N., Kusakari, K., Sakabe, T.: Decidability of reachability for right-shallow context-sensitive term rewriting systems. IPSJ Online Trans. 4, 192–216 (2011)Lucas, S.: Analysis of rewriting-based systems as first-order theories. In: Fioravanti, F., Gallagher, J.P. (eds.) LOPSTR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10855, pp. 180–197. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94460-9_11Lucas, S.: Context-sensitive computations in functional and functional logic programs. J. Funct. Logic Program. 1998(1) (1998). http://danae.uni-muenster.de/lehre/kuchen/JFLP/articles/1998/A98-01/A98-01.htmlLucas, S.: Proving semantic properties as first-order satisfiability. Artif. Intell. 277 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.103174Lucas, S.: Using well-founded relations for proving operational termination. J. Autom. Reasoning 64(2), 167–195 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-019-09514-2Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting. Inf. Process. Lett. 136, 90–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2018.04.002Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 95(4), 446–453 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2005.05.002Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Proving operational termination of declarative programs in general logics. In: Chitil, O., King, A., Danvy, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 8–10 September 2014, pp. 111–122. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2643135.2643152Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: The 2D dependency pair framework for conditional rewrite systems. Part I: definition and basic processors. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 96, 74–106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2018.04.002Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: The 2D dependency pair framework for conditional rewrite systems—Part II: advanced processors and implementation techniques. J. Autom. Reasoning (2020, in press)McCune, W.: Prover9 and Mace4. https://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/mace4/Meßner, F., Sternagel, C.: nonreach – a tool for nonreachability analysis. In: Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11427, pp. 337–343. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17462-0_19Middeldorp, A., Nagele, J., Shintani, K.: Confluence competition 2019. In: Beyer, D., Huisman, M., Kordon, F., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11429, pp. 25–40. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_2Nishida, N., Maeda, Y.: Narrowing trees for syntactically deterministic conditional term rewriting systems. In: Kirchner, H. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction. FSCD 2018. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 108, pp. 26:1–26:20. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2018). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2018.26Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). http://www.springer.com/computer/swe/book/978-0-387-95250-5Prawitz, D.: Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study. Dover, New York (2006)Sternagel, C., Sternagel, T., Middeldorp, A.: CoCo 2018 Participant: ConCon 1.5. In: Felgenhauer, B., Simonsen, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Confluence. IWC 2018, p. 66 (2018). http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/events/iwc-2018/Sternagel, C., Yamada, A.: Reachability analysis for termination and confluence of rewriting. In: Vojnar, T., Zhang, L. (eds.) TACAS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11427, pp. 262–278. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17462-0_15Winkler, S., Moser, G.: MædMax: a maximal ordered completion tool. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10900, pp. 472–480. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_3

MU-TERM: Verify Termination Properties Automatically (System Description)

[EN] We report on the new version of mu-term, a tool for proving termination properties of variants of rewrite systems, including conditional, context-sensitive, equational, and order-sorted rewrite systems. We follow a unified logic-based approach to describe rewriting computations. The automatic generation of logical models for suitable first-order theories and formulas provide a common basis to implement the proofs.Supported by EU (FEDER), and projects RTI2018-094403-B-C32,PROMETEO/ 2019/098, and SP20180225. Also by INCIBE program "Ayudas para la excelencia de los equipos de investigación avanzada en ciberseguridad" (Raul Gutiérrez).Gutiérrez Gil, R.; Lucas Alba, S. (2020). MU-TERM: Verify Termination Properties Automatically (System Description). Springer Nature. 436-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51054-1_28S436447Alarcón, B., et al.: Improving context-sensitive dependency pairs. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 636–651. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_44Alarcón, B., Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Context-sensitive dependency pairs. Inf. Comput. 208(8), 922–968 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2010.03.003Alarcón, B., Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Proving termination properties with mu-term. In: Johnson, M., Pavlovic, D. (eds.) AMAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 201–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17796-5_12Alarcón, 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16310-4_4Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1–2), 133–178 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(99)00207-8Clavel, M., et al.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71999-1Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. J. Autom. Reasoning 40(2–3), 195–220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-007-9087-9Giesl, J., Arts, T.: Verification of erlang processes by dependency pairs. Appl. Algebra Eng. Commun. Comput. 12(1/2), 39–72 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002000100063Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Proving and disproving termination of higher-order functions. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.) FroCoS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3717, pp. 216–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11559306_12Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-006-9057-7Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted algebra I: equational deduction for multiple inheritance, overloading, exceptions and partial operations. Theor. Comput. Sci. 105(2), 217–273 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(92)90302-VGutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Function calls at frozen positions in termination of context-sensitive rewriting. In: Martí-Oliet, N., Ölveczky, P.C., Talcott, C. (eds.) Logic, Rewriting, and Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 9200, pp. 311–330. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23165-5_15Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Proving termination in the context-sensitive dependency pair framework. In: Ölveczky, P.C. (ed.) WRLA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6381, pp. 18–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16310-4_3Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Automatic generation of logical models with AGES. In: Fontaine, P. (ed.) CADE 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11716, pp. 287–299. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29436-6_17Gutiérrez, R., Lucas, S.: Automatically proving and disproving feasibility conditions. In: Peltier, N., Sofronie-Stokkermans, V. (eds.) IJCAR 2020. LNAI, vol. 12167, pp. 416–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2020)Lucas, S.: Context-sensitive computations in functional and functional logic programs. J. Funct. Log. Program. 1998(1), 1–61 (1998). http://danae.uni-muenster.de/lehre/kuchen/JFLP/articles/1998/A98-01/A98-01.htmlLucas, S.: Context-sensitive rewriting strategies. Inf. Comput. 178(1), 294–343 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.2002.3176Lucas, S.: Proving semantic properties as first-order satisfiability. Artif. Intell. 277 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.103174Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Automatic synthesis of logical models for order-sorted first-order theories. J. Autom. Reasoning 60(4), 465–501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-017-9419-3Lucas, S., Gutiérrez, R.: Use of logical models for proving infeasibility in term rewriting. Inf. Process. Lett. 136, 90–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2018.04.002Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Inf. Process. Lett. 95(4), 446–453 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2005.05.002Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Order-sorted dependency pairs. In: Antoy, S., Albert, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, 15–17 July 2008, Valencia, Spain, pp. 108–119. ACM (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1389449.1389463Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Dependency pairs for proving termination properties of conditional term rewriting systems. J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program. 86(1), 236–268 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp.2016.03.003Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: The 2D dependency pair framework for conditional rewrite systems. Part I: Definition and basic processors. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 96, 74–106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2018.04.002Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: The 2D dependency pair framework for conditional rewrite systems—part II: advanced processors and implementation techniques. J. Autom. Reasoning (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-020-09542-3McCune, W.: Prover9 & Mace4. Technical report (2005–2010). http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3661-8 . http://www.springer.com/computer/swe/book/978-0-387-95250-5Ölveczky, P.C., Lysne, O.: Order-sorted termination: the unsorted way. In: Hanus, M., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) ALP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1139, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61735-3_6Zantema, H.: Termination of term rewriting: interpretation and type elimination. J. Symb. Comput. 17(1), 23–50 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1006/jsco.1994.1003Zantema, H.: Termination of context-sensitive rewriting. In: Comon, H. (ed.) RTA 1997. LNCS, vol. 1232, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62950-5_6

infChecker. A Tool for Checking Infeasibility

[EN] Given a Conditional Term Rewriting System (CTRS) R and terms s and t, we say that the reachability condition s ->* t is *feasible* if there is a substitution \sigma instantiating the variables in s and t such that the *reachability test* \sigma(s)->* \sigma(t) succeeds; otherwise, we call it *infeasible*. Checking infeasibility of such (sequences of) reachability conditions is important in the analysis of computational properties of CTRSs, like confluence or operational termination. Recently, a logic-based approach to prove and disprove infeasibility has been introduced. In this paper we present infChecker, a new tool for checking infeasibility which is based on such an approach.Partially supported by the EU (FEDER), and projects RTI2018-094403-B-C32, PROMETEO/2019/098, and SP20180225. Raul Gutierrez was also supported by INCIBE program Ayudas para la excelencia de los equipos de investigacion avanzada en ciberseguridad.Gutiérrez Gil, R.; Lucas Alba, S. (2019). infChecker. A Tool for Checking Infeasibility. Universidade de Brasilia. 38-42. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/181069S384

Narrowing Trees for Syntactically Deterministic Conditional Term Rewriting Systems

A narrowing tree for a constructor term rewriting system and a pair of terms is a finite representation for the space of all possible innermost-narrowing derivations that start with the pair and end with non-narrowable terms. Narrowing trees have grammar representations that can be considered regular tree grammars. Innermost narrowing is a counterpart of constructor-based rewriting, and thus, narrowing trees can be used in analyzing constructor-based rewriting to normal forms. In this paper, using grammar representations, we extend narrowing trees to syntactically deterministic conditional term rewriting systems that are constructor systems. We show that narrowing trees are useful to prove two properties of a normal conditional term rewriting system: one is infeasibility of conditional critical pairs and the other is quasi-reducibility

Confluence of Conditional Rewriting in Logic Form

We characterize conditional rewriting as satisfiability in a Herbrand-like model of terms where variables are also included as fresh constant symbols extending the original signature. Confluence of conditional rewriting and joinability of conditional critical pairs is characterized similarly. Joinability of critical pairs is then translated into combinations of (in)feasibility problems which can be efficiently handled by a number of automatic tools. This permits a more efficient use of standard results for proving confluence of conditional term rewriting systems, most of them relying on auxiliary proofs of joinability of conditional critical pairs, perhaps with additional syntactical and (operational) termination requirements on the system. Our approach has been implemented in a new system: CONFident . Its ability to (dis)prove confluence of conditional term rewriting systems is witnessed by means of some benchmarks comparing our tool with existing tools for similar purposes

Proving Confluence in the Confluence Framework with CONFident

This article describes the *Confluence Framework*, a novel framework for proving and disproving confluence using a divide-and-conquer modular strategy, and its implementation in CONFident. Using this approach, we are able to automatically prove and disprove confluence of *Generalized Term Rewriting Systems*, where (i) only selected arguments of function symbols can be rewritten and (ii) a rather general class of conditional rules can be used. This includes, as particular cases, several variants of rewrite systems such as (context-sensitive) *term rewriting systems*, *string rewriting systems*, and (context-sensitive) *conditional term rewriting systems*. The divide-and-conquer modular strategy allows us to combine in a proof tree different techniques for proving confluence, including modular decompositions, checking joinability of (conditional) critical and variable pairs, transformations, etc., and auxiliary tasks required by them, e.g., joinability of terms, joinability of conditional pairs, etc