Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Conclusion and Future Work
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Software Engineering

A3PAT, an approach for certified automated termination proofs

Profile image of olivier ponsolivier pons

2010, Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Partial evaluation and program manipulation

https://doi.org/10.1145/1706356.1706370
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Software engineering, automated reasoning, rule-based programming or specifications often use rewriting systems for which termination, among other properties, may have to be ensured. This paper presents the approach developed in Project A3PAT to discover and moreover certify, with full automation, termination proofs for term rewriting systems. It consists of two developments: the COCCINELLE library formalises numerous rewriting techniques and termination criteria for the COQ proof assistant; the CiME3 rewriting tool translates termination proofs (discovered by itself or other tools) into traces that are certified by COQ assisted by COCCINELLE. The abstraction level of our formalisation allowed us to weaken premises of some theorems known in the literature, thus yielding new termination criteria, such as an extension of the powerful subterm criterion (for which we propose the first full COQ formalisation). Techniques employed in CiME3 also improve on previous works on formalisation and analysis of dependency graphs.

Related papers

mu-term: a tool for proving termination of rewriting with replacement restrictions
Salvador Lucas

WST'04 7th International Workshop on …, 2003

Abstract. This paper describes mu-term, a tool which can be used to automatically prove termination of computational restrictions of rewriting such as context-sensitive rewriting and lazy rewriting. The tool can also be used to prove termination of rewriting. In this sense, ...

View PDFchevron_right
mu-term: A Tool for Proving Termination of Context-Sensitive Rewriting
Salvador Lucas

Rewriting Techniques and Applications, 2004

Restrictions of rewriting can eventually achieve termination by pruning all infinite rewrite sequences issued from every term. Contextsensitive rewriting (CSR) is an example of such a restriction. In CSR, the replacements in some arguments of the function symbols are permanently forbidden. This paper describes mu-term, a tool which can be used to automatically prove termination of CSR. The tool implements the generation of the appropriate orderings for proving termination of CSR by means of polynomial interpretations over the rational numbers. In fact, mu-term is the first termination tool which generates term orderings based on such polynomial interpretations. These orderings can also be used, in a number of different ways, for proving termination of ordinary rewriting. Proofs of termination of CSR are also possible via existing transformations to TRSs (without any replacement restriction) which are also implemented in mu-term.

View PDFchevron_right
Methods for Proving Termination of Rewriting-based Programming Languages by Transformation
Salvador Lucas

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2009

Despite the remarkable development of the theory of termination of rewriting, its application to high-level (rewriting-based) programming languages is far from being optimal. This is due to the need for features such as conditional equations and rules, types and subtypes, (possibly programmable) strategies for controlling the execution, matching modulo axioms, and so on, that are used in many programs and tend to place such programs outside the scope of current termination tools. The operational meaning of such features is often formalized in a proof theoretic manner by means of an inference system rather than just by a rewriting relation. The corresponding termination notions can also differ from the standard ones. During the last years we have introduced and implemented different notions and transformation techniques which have been proved useful for proving and disproving termination of such programs by using existing tools for proving termination of (variants of) rewriting. In this paper we provide an overview of our main contributions.

View PDFchevron_right
Certification of Automated Termination Proofs
Olivier Pons, Julien Forest

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007

Nowadays, formal methods rely on tools of different kinds: proof assistants with which the user interacts to discover a proof step by step; and fully automated tools which make use of (intricate) decision procedures. But while some proof assistants can check the soundness of a proof, they lack automation. Regarding automated tools, one still has to be satisfied with their answers Yes/No/Do not know, the validity of which can be subject to question, in particular because of the increasing size and complexity of these tools. In the context of rewriting techniques, we aim at bridging the gap between proof assistants that yield formal guarantees of reliability and highly automated tools one has to trust. We present an approach making use of both shallow and deep embeddings. We illustrate this approach with a prototype based on the CiME rewriting toolbox, which can discover involved termination proofs that can be certified by the COQ proof assistant, using the COCCINELLE library for rewriting.

View PDFchevron_right
Automated termination proofs for haskell by term rewriting
Peter Schneider-kamp

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 2011

There are many powerful techniques for automated termination analysis of term rewriting. However, up to now they have hardly been used for real programming languages. We present a new approach which permits the application of existing techniques from term rewriting to prove termination of most functions defined in Haskell programs. In particular, we show how termination techniques for ordinary rewriting can be used to handle those features of Haskell which are missing in term rewriting (e.g., lazy evaluation, polymorphic types, and higher-order functions). We implemented our results in the termination prover AProVE and successfully evaluated them on existing Haskell libraries.

View PDFchevron_right
Transformational methodology for proving termination of logic programs
shyamasundar R.K.

The Journal of Logic Programming, 1998

View PDFchevron_right
Automated Termination Analysis for Logic Programs by Term Rewriting
Jürgen Giesl, Peter Schneider-kamp

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007

Termination is an important and well-studied property for logic programs. However, almost all approaches for automated termination analysis focus on definite logic programs, whereas real-world Prolog programs typically use the cut operator. We introduce a novel pre-processing method which automatically transforms Prolog programs into logic programs without cuts, where termination of the cut-free program implies termination of the original program. Hence after this pre-processing, any technique for proving termination of definite logic programs can be applied. We implemented this pre-processing in our termination prover AProVE and evaluated it successfully with extensive experiments.

View PDFchevron_right
Proving Termination of Context-Sensitive Rewriting with MU-TERM
Beatriz Martinez Alarcon

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2007

Context-sensitive rewriting (CSR) is a restriction of rewriting which forbids reductions on selected arguments of functions. Proving termination of CSR is an interesting problem with several applications in the fields of term rewriting and programming languages. Several methods have been developed for proving termination of CSR. The new version of MU-TERM which we present here implements all currently known techniques. Furthermore, we show how to combine them to furnish MU-TERM with an expert which is able to automatically perform the termination proofs. Finally, we provide a first experimental evaluation of the tool.

View PDFchevron_right
Proving Termination Properties with mu-term
Beatriz Martinez Alarcon

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

mu-term is a tool which can be used to verify a number of termination properties of (variants of) Term Rewriting Systems (TRSs): termination of rewriting, termination of innermost rewriting, termination of order-sorted rewriting, termination of context-sensitive rewriting, termination of innermost context-sensitive rewriting and termination of rewriting modulo specific axioms. Such termination properties are essential to prove termination of programs in sophisticated rewriting-based programming languages. Specific methods have been developed and implemented in mu-term in order to efficiently deal with most of them. In this paper, we report on these new features of the tool.

View PDFchevron_right
Proving Termination by Dependency Pairs and Inductive Theorem Proving
Jürgen Giesl, Peter Schneider-kamp

Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2011

Current techniques and tools for automated termination analysis of term rewrite systems (TRSs) are already very powerful. However, they fail for algorithms whose termination is essentially due to an inductive argument. Therefore, we show how to couple the dependency pair method for TRS termination with inductive theorem proving. As confirmed by the implementation of our new approach in the tool AProVE, now TRS termination techniques are also successful on this important class of algorithms.

View PDFchevron_right

References (40)

  1. B. Alarcón, R. Gutiérrez, and S. Lucas. Context-Sensitive Dependency Pairs. In S. Arun-Kumar and N. Garg, editors, FST&TCS'06, volume 4337 of LNCS, pages 297-308, Kolkata, India, 2006. Springer-Verlag.
  2. P. Schneider-Kamp, R. Thiemann, E. Annov, M. Codish, and J. Giesl. Proving Termination using Recursive Path Orders and SAT Solving. In B. Konev and F. Wolter, editors, FroCos'07, volume 4720 of LNAI, pages 267-282, Liverpool, UK, Sept. 2007. Springer-Verlag.
  3. T. Arts and J. Giesl. Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. TCS, 236:133-178, 2000.
  4. T. Arts and J. Giesl. Automatically Proving Termination Where Simplification Orderings Fail. In M. Bidoit and M. Dauchet, editors, Theory and Practice of Software Development, volume 1214 of LNCS, Lille, France, Apr. 1997. Springer-Verlag.
  5. F. Baader and T. Nipkow. Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  6. M. Bezem, D. Hendriks, and H. de Nivelle. Automated proof construc- tion in type theory using resolution. JAR, 29(3-4):253-275, 2002.
  7. F. Blanqui, S. Coupet-Grimal, W. Delobel, S. Hinderer, and A. Ko- prowski. Color, a Coq library on rewriting and termination. In Geser and Sondergaard [24].
  8. É. Contejean. The Coccinelle library for rewriting. URL http: //www.lri.fr/~contejea/Coccinelle/coccinelle.html.
  9. É. Contejean. A certified AC matching algorithm. In V. van Oost- rom, editor, RTA'04, volume 3091 of LNCS, pages 70-84, Aachen, Germany, June 2004. Springer-Verlag.
  10. E. Contejean and C. Marché. CiME: Completion Modulo E. In Ganzinger [23], pages 416-419. URL http://cime.lri.fr/.
  11. É. Contejean, C. Marché, B. Monate, and X. Urbain. Proving termi- nation of rewriting with CiME. In A. Rubio, editor, WST'03, pages 71-73, June 2003. URL http://cime.lri.fr. Technical Report DSIC II/15/03, Univ. Politécnica de Valencia, Spain.
  12. É. Contejean, C. Marché, A. P. Tomás, and X. Urbain. Mechanically proving termination using polynomial interpretations. JAR, 34(4): 325-363, 2005.
  13. É. Contejean, P. Courtieu, J. Forest, O. Pons, and X. Urbain. Certifi- cation of automated termination proofs. In B. Konev and F. Wolter, editors, FroCos'07, volume 4720 of LNAI, pages 148-162, Liverpool, UK, Sept. 2007. Springer-Verlag.
  14. T. Coquand and C. Paulin-Mohring. Inductively defined types. In P. Martin-Löf and G. Mints, editors, Proceedings of Colog'88, volume 417 of LNCS, Tallinn, USSR, 1988. Springer-Verlag.
  15. P. Courtieu, J. Forest, and X. Urbain. Certifying a Termination Cri- terion Based on Graphs, Without Graphs. In C. Muñoz and O. Ait Mohamed, editors, TPHOLs'08, volume 5170 of LNCS, pages 183- 198, Montréal, Canada, Aug. 2008. Springer-Verlag.
  16. P. Courtieu, G. Gbedo, and O. Pons. Improved matrix interpretations. In J. van Leeuwen et al., editor, SOFSEM'10, LNCS, Špindleruv Mlýn, Czech Republic, Jan. 2010. Springer-Verlag. To appear.
  17. N. Dershowitz. Orderings for term rewriting systems. TCS, 17(3): 279-301, Mar. 1982.
  18. N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Rewrite systems. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol- ume B, pages 243-320. North-Holland, 1990.
  19. D. Doligez. Zenon. URL http://focal.inria.fr/zenon/.
  20. J. Endrullis. Jambox. URL http://joerg.endrullis.de/index. html.
  21. J. Endrullis, J. Waldmann, and H. Zantema. Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. JAR, 40(2-3):195-220, 2008.
  22. C. Fuhs, A. Middeldorp, P. Schneider-Kamp, and H. Zankl. SAT solving for termination analysis with polynomial interpretations. In SAT'07, volume 4501 of LNCS, pages 340-354, Lisbon, Portugal, May 2007. Springer-Verlag.
  23. H. Ganzinger, editor. RTA'96, volume 1103 of LNCS, New Brunswick, USA, July 1996. Springer-Verlag.
  24. A. Geser and H. Sondergaard, editors. WST'06, Aug. 2006.
  25. J. Giesl, T. Arts, and E. Ohlebusch. Modular Termination Proofs for Rewriting Using Dependency Pairs. JSC, 34:21-58, 2002. doi:10.1006/jsco.2002.0541.
  26. J. Giesl, R. Thiemann, P. Schneider-Kamp, and S. Falke. Improving Dependency Pairs. In LPAR'03, volume 2850 of LNAI, pages 165- 179, Almaty, Kazakhstan, Sep. 2003. Springer-Verlag.
  27. J. Giesl, P. Schneider-Kamp, and R. Thiemann. AProVE 1.2: Auto- matic termination proofs in the dependency pair framework. In U. Fur- bach and N. Shankar, editors, IJCAR'06, volume 4130 of LNCS, Seat- tle, USA, Aug. 2006. Springer-Verlag.
  28. B. Gramlich. On proving termination by innermost termination. In Ganzinger [23], pages 93-107.
  29. N. Hirokawa and A. Middeldorp. Tyrolean Termination Tool: Tech- niques and Features. IC, 205(4):474 -511, 2007.
  30. A. Koprowski. TPA: Termination Proved Automatically, In F. Pfen- ning, editor, RTA'06, volume 4098 of LNCS, pages 257 -266, Seattle, USA, Aug. 2006. Springer-Verlag.
  31. M. Korp, C. Sternagel, H. Zankl, and A. Middeldorp. Tyrolean Termi- nation Tool 2. In R. Treinen, editor, RTA'09, volume 5595 of LNCS, pages 295-304, Brasília, Brazil, July 2009. Springer-Verlag.
  32. K. Kusakari, M. Nakamura, and Y. Toyama. Argument filtering trans- formation. In G. Nadathur, editor, PPDP'99, volume 1702 of LNCS, pages 47-61, Paris, France, 1999. Springer-Verlag.
  33. D. S. Lankford. On proving term rewriting systems are Noethe- rian. Technical Report MTP-3, Mathematics Department, Louisiana Tech. Univ., 1979. URL http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/pierre. lescanne/not_accessible.html.
  34. C. Marché and H. Zantema. The termination competition 2006. In Geser and Sondergaard [24]. URL http://www.lri.fr/~marche/ termination-competition/.
  35. Q. H. Nguyen, C. Kirchner, and H. Kirchner. External rewriting for skeptical proof assistants. JAR, 29(3-4):309-336, 2002.
  36. T. Nipkow, L. C. Paulson, and M. Wenzel. Isabelle/HOL -A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Volume 2283 of LNCS, 2002. Springer-Verlag.
  37. The Coq Development Team. The Coq Proof Assistant Documentation -Version V8.2, June 2008. URL http://coq.inria.fr/refman/.
  38. R. Thiemann and C. Sternagel. Certification of Termination Proofs using CeTA. In T. Nipkow and C. Urban, editors, TPHOLs'09, vol- ume 5674 of LNCS, pages 452-468, Munich, Germany, Aug. 2009. Springer-Verlag.
  39. R. Thiemann, J. Giesl, and P. Schneider-Kamp. Improved modular termination proofs using dependency pairs. In IJCAR'04, volume 3097 of LNAI, pages 75-90, Cork, Ireland, 2004. Springer-Verlag.
  40. X. Urbain. Modular and incremental automated termination proofs. JAR, 32(4):315-355, 2004.

Related papers

Automatic Termination Proofs in the Dependency Pair Framework
Peter Schneider-kamp

2006

AProVE 1.2 is one of the most powerful systems for automated termination proofs of term rewrite systems (TRSs). It is the first tool which automates the new dependency pair framework [8] and therefore permits a completely flexible combination of different termination proof techniques. Due to this framework, AProVE 1.2 is also the first termination prover which can be fully configured by the user.

View PDFchevron_right
Automated termination proofs for logic programs by term rewriting
Alexander Serebrenik

ACM Transactions on …, 2009

There are two kinds of approaches for termination analysis of logic programs: "transformational" and "direct" ones. Direct approaches prove termination directly on the basis of the logic program. Transformational approaches transform a logic program into a term rewrite system (TRS) and then analyze termination of the resulting TRS instead. Thus, transformational approaches make all methods previously developed for TRSs available for logic programs as well. However, the applicability of most existing transformations is quite restricted, as they can only be used for certain subclasses of logic programs. (Most of them are restricted to well-moded programs.) In this paper we improve these transformations such that they become applicable for any definite logic program. To simulate the behavior of logic programs by TRSs, we slightly modify the notion of rewriting by permitting infinite terms. We show that our transformation results in TRSs which are indeed suitable for automated termination analysis. In contrast to most other methods for termination of logic programs, our technique is also sound for logic programming without occur check, which is typically used in practice. We implemented our approach in the termination prover AProVE and successfully evaluated it on a large collection of examples.

View PDFchevron_right
The Dependency Pair Framework: Combining Techniques for Automated Termination Proofs
Peter Schneider-kamp

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005

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.

View PDFchevron_right
AProVE 1.2: Automatic Termination Proofs in the Dependency Pair Framework
Peter Schneider-kamp

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006

AProVE 1.2 is one of the most powerful systems for automated termination proofs of term rewrite systems (TRSs). It is the first tool which automates the new dependency pair framework [8] and therefore permits a completely flexible combination of different termination proof techniques. Due to this framework, AProVE 1.2 is also the first termination prover which can be fully configured by the user.

View PDFchevron_right
Automated termination proofs with AProVE
Jürgen Giesl, Peter Schneider-kamp

2004

We describe the system AProVE, an automated prover to verify (innermost) termination of term rewrite systems (TRSs). For this system, we have developed and implemented efficient algorithms based on classical simplification orders, dependency pairs, and the size-change principle. In particular, it contains many new improvements of the dependency pair approach that make automated termination proving more powerful and efficient. In AProVE, termination proofs can be performed with a user-friendly graphical interface and the system is currently among the most powerful termination provers available.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Automated reasoning
  • Rewriting Logic
  • Program Transformation
  • Software Analysis
  • Formal Proof
  • Program Synthesis
  • Dependence Graph
  • Mathematical Proof
  • PARTIAL EVALUATION
  • Call graph

    • Cited by

    Structural Analysis of Narratives with the Coq Proof Assistant
    Julien Forest

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

    This paper proposes a novel application of Interactive Proof Assistants for studying the formal properties of Narratives, building on recent work demonstrating the suitability of Intuitionistic Linear Logic as a conceptual model. More specifically, we describe a method for modelling narrative resources and actions, together with constraints on the story endings in the form of an ILL sequent. We describe how well-formed narratives can be interpreted from cut-free proof trees of the sequent obtained using Coq. We finally describe how to reason about narratives at the structural level using Coq: by allowing one to prove 2nd order properties on the set of all the proofs generated by a sequent, Coq assists the verification of structural narrative properties traversing all possible variants of a given plot.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved