The Dependency Pair Framework: Combining Techniques for Automated Termination Proofs

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[2] 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.

[1]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Termination by Abstraction , 2004, ICLP.

[3]  Larry Wos,et al.  What Is Automated Reasoning? , 1987, J. Autom. Reason..

[4]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Termination of Rewriting , 1987, J. Symb. Comput..

[5]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Term rewriting and all that , 1998 .

[6]  Jacques D. Fleuriot,et al.  IsaPlanner: A Prototype Proof Planner in Isabelle , 2003, CADE.

[7]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Improved Modular Termination Proofs Using Dependency Pairs , 2004, IJCAR.

[8]  Bernhard Gramlich,et al.  Abstract Relations between Restricted Termination and Confluence Properties of Rewrite Systems , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[9]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Automated Termination Proofs with AProVE , 2004, RTA.

[10]  D. Knuth,et al.  Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras , 1983 .

[11]  Nao Hirokawa,et al.  Polynomial Interpretations with Negative Coefficients , 2004, AISC.

[12]  Joachim Steinbach,et al.  Simplification Orderings: Histrory of Results , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[13]  Yoshihito Toyama,et al.  Counterexamples to Termination for the Direct Sum of Term Rewriting Systems , 1987, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Logic Programming , 1990, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[15]  Enno Ohlebusch,et al.  Modular Termination Proofs for Rewriting Using Dependency Pairs , 2002, J. Symb. Comput..

[16]  Hans Zantema,et al.  Termination of Term Rewriting by Semantic Labelling , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[17]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Verification of Erlang Processes by Dependency Pairs , 2001, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing.

[18]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras††The work reported in this paper was supported in part by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. , 1970 .

[19]  Nao Hirokawa,et al.  Automating the Dependency Pair Method , 2005, CADE.

[20]  Roberto Grossi,et al.  Mathematical Foundations Of Computer Science 2003 , 2003 .

[21]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Monodic fragments of first-order temporal logics: 2000-2001 A.D , 2001, LPAR.

[22]  Dieter Hofbauer,et al.  Match-Bounded String Rewriting Systems , 2003, MFCS.

[23]  Yoshihito Toyama,et al.  Argument Filtering Transformation , 1999, PPDP.

[24]  Jürgen Giesl,et al.  Improving Dependency Pairs , 2003, LPAR.

[25]  Nao Hirokawa,et al.  Dependency Pairs Revisited , 2004, RTA.