Stream Productivity by Outermost Termination

Streams are infinite sequences over a given data type. A stream specification is a set of equations intended to define a stream. A core property is productivity: unfolding the equations produces the intended stream in the limit. In this paper we show that productivity is equivalent to termination with respect to the balanced outermost strategy of a TRS obtained by adding an additional rule. For specifications not involving branching symbols balancedness is obtained for free, by which tools for proving outermost termination can be used to prove productivity fully automatically

A complete characterization of termination of 0p1q → 1r0s

We completely characterize termination of one-rule string rewriting systems of the form 0p1q → 1r0s for every choice of positive integers p, q, r, and s. For the simply terminating cases, we give a sharp estimate of the complexity of derivation lengths

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

Models for logics and conditional constraints in automated proofs of termination

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13770-4_3Reasoning about termination of declarative programs, which are described by means of a computational logic, requires the definition of appropriate abstractions as semantic models of the logic, and also handling the conditional constraints which are often obtained. The formal treatment of such constraints in automated proofs, often using numeric interpretations and (arithmetic) constraint solving can greatly benefit from appropriate techniques to deal with the conditional (in)equations at stake. Existing results from linear algebra or real algebraic geometry are useful to deal with them but have received only scant attention to date. We investigate the definition and use of numeric models for logics and the resolution of linear and algebraic conditional constraints as unifying techniques for proving termination of declarative programs.Developed during a sabbatical year at UIUC. Supported by projects NSF CNS13-19109, MINECO TIN2010-21062-C02-02 and TIN2013-45732-C4-1-P, and GV BEST/2014/026 and PROMETEO/2011/052.Lucas Alba, S.; Meseguer, J. (2014). Models for logics and conditional constraints in automated proofs of termination. En Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation. Springer Verlag (Germany). 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13770-4_3S920Alarcón, 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)Alarcón, B., Lucas, S., Navarro-Marset, R.: Using Matrix Interpretations over the Reals in Proofs of Termination. In: Proc. of PROLE 2009, pp. 255–264 (2009)Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C. (eds.): All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Contejean, E., Marché, C., Tomás, A.-P., Urbain, X.: Mechanically proving termination using polynomial interpretations. J. of Aut. Reas. 34(4), 325–363 (2006)Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix Interpretations for Proving Termination of Term Rewriting. J. of Aut. Reas. 40(2-3), 195–220 (2008)Fuhs, C., Giesl, J., Middeldorp, A., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R., Zankl, H.: Maximal Termination. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) RTA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5117, pp. 110–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Futatsugi, K., Diaconescu, R.: CafeOBJ Report. AMAST Series. World Scientific (1998)Hudak, P., Peyton-Jones, S.J., Wadler, P.: Report on the Functional Programming Language Haskell: a non–strict, purely functional language. Sigplan Notices 27(5), 1–164 (1992)Lucas, S.: Context-sensitive computations in functional and functional logic programs. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 1998(1), 1–61 (1998)Lucas, S.: Polynomials over the reals in proofs of termination: from theory to practice. RAIRO Theoretical Informatics and Applications 39(3), 547–586 (2005)Lucas, S., Marché, C., Meseguer, J.: Operational termination of conditional term rewriting systems. Information Processing Letters 95, 446–453 (2005)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: Proving Operational Termination of Declarative Programs in General Logics. In: Proc. of PPDP 2014, pp. 111–122. ACM Digital Library (2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J.: 2D Dependency Pairs for Proving Operational Termination of CTRSs. In: Proc. of WRLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8663 (to appear, 2014)Lucas, S., Meseguer, J., Gutiérrez, R.: Extending the 2D DP Framework for CTRSs. In: Selected papers of LOPSTR 2014. LNCS (to appear, 2015)Meseguer, J.: General Logics. In: Ebbinghaus, H.-D., et al. (eds.) Logic Colloquium 1987, pp. 275–329. North-Holland (1989)Nguyen, M.T., de Schreye, D., Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Polytool: Polynomial interpretations as a basis for termination of logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11(1), 33–63 (2011)Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer (April 2002)Prestel, A., Delzell, C.N.: Positive Polynomials. In: From Hilbert’s 17th Problem to Real Algebra. Springer, Berlin (2001)Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: A Complete Method for the Synthesis of Linear Ranking Functions. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 239–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Schrijver, A.: Theory of linear and integer programming. John Wiley & Sons (1986)Zantema, H.: Termination of Context-Sensitive Rewriting. In: Comon, H. (ed.) RTA 1997. LNCS, vol. 1232, pp. 172–186. Springer, Heidelberg (1997

The dependency pair framework: Combining techniques for automated termination proofs

Abstract. The dependency pair approach is one of the most powerful techniques for automated termination proofs of term rewrite systems. Up to now, it was regarded as one of several possible methods to prove termination. In this paper, we show that dependency pairs can instead be used as a general concept to integrate arbitrary techniques for termination analysis. In this way, the benefits of different techniques can be combined and their modularity and power are increased significantly. We refer to this new concept as the “dependency pair framework ” to distinguish it from the old “dependency pair approach”. Moreover, this framework facilitates the development of new methods for termination analysis. To demonstrate this, we present several new techniques within the dependency pair framework which simplify termination problems considerably. We implemented the dependency pair framework in our termination prover AProVE and evaluated it on large collections of examples.