Confluence Competition 2019
Abstract
We report on the 2019 edition of the Confluence Competition, a competition of software tools that aim to prove or disprove confluence and related (undecidable) properties of rewrite systems automatically.
Keywords
Confluence Term rewriting Automation1 Introduction
The Confluence Competition (CoCo)^{1} is an annual competition of software tools that aim to prove or disprove confluence and related (undecidable) properties of a variety of rewrite formalisms automatically. Initiated in 2012, CoCo runs live in a single slot at a conference or workshop and is executed on the crosscommunity competition platform StarExec [1]. For each category, 100 suitable problems are randomly selected from the online database of confluence problems (COPS). Participating tools must answer YES or NO within 60 s, followed by a justification that is understandable by a human expert; any other output signals that the tool could not determine the status of the problem. CoCo 2019 features new categories on commutation, infeasibility problems, and confluence of string rewrite systems.
Confluence provides a general notion of determinism and has been conceived as one of the central properties of rewriting. A rewrite system \(\mathcal {R}\) is a set of directed equations, so called rewrite rules, which induces a rewrite relation \(\rightarrow _\mathcal {R}\) on terms. We provide a simple example.
Example 1
2 Categories

TRS/CPFTRS The two original categories are about confluence of firstorder term rewriting. CPFTRS is a category for certified confluence proofs, where participating tools must generate certificates that are checked by an independent certifier.

CTRS/CPFCTRS These two categories, introduced respectively in 2014 and 2015, are concerned (certified) confluence of conditional term rewriting, a formalism in which rewrite rules come equipped with conditions that are evaluated recursively using the rewrite relation.

HRS This category, introduced in 2015, deals with confluence of higherorder rewriting, i.e., rewriting with binders and functional variables.

GCR This category is about ground confluence of manysorted term rewrite systems and was also introduced in 2015.

NFP/UNC/UNR These three categories, introduced in 2016, are about properties of firstorder term rewrite systems related to unique normal forms, namely, the normal form property (NFP), unique normal forms with respect to conversion (UNC), and unique normal forms with respect to reduction (UNR).

COM This new category is about commutation of firstorder rewrite systems.

INF This new category is about infeasibility problems.

SRS This new category is concerned with confluence of string rewriting.
The new categories are described in detail in Sect. 5. Descriptions of the other categories can be found in the CoCo 2015 [2] and 2018 [3] reports, and on the CoCo website (see Footnote 1). The underlying problem format is the topic of the next section.
3 Confluence Problems
Tools participating in CoCo are given problems from the database of confluence problems (COPS)^{2} in a format suitable for the category in which the tools participate. Besides commutation and infeasibility problems, which are described in Sect. 5, four different formats are supported: TRS, CTRS, MSTRS, and HRS. As these formats were simplified recently, we present the official syntax below in four subsections.
In addition to the format, tags are used to determine suitable problems for CoCo categories. For instance, for the CTRS category, selected problems must have the 3_ctrs and oriented tags. Such tags are automatically computed when problems are submitted to COPS. Detailed information on COPS, including a description of the tagging mechanism, can be found in [4].
3.1 TRS Format
The format for firstorder rewrite systems comes in two versions: a basic version and an extended version. The latter contains an additional signature declaration which is used to define function symbols that do not appear in the rewrite rules.
3.2 CTRS Format
3.3 MSTRS Format
3.4 HRS Format
4 Competition
Since 2012 a total of 17 tools participated in CoCo. Many of the tools participated in multiple categories. The proceedings of the International Workshop on Confluence^{4} contain (short) descriptions of the contenders. For each category, 100 problems are randomly selected from COPS. Problem selection for CoCo 2019 is subject to the following constraints. For the TRS, CPFTRS, NFP, UNC, and UNR categories, problems in TRS format are selected. The problems for the SRS category are further restricted to those having the srs tag. For the CTRS and CPFCTRS categories, problems must be in CTRS format and have the tags 3_ctrs and oriented, since participating tools handle only oriented CTRSs of type 3. In an oriented CTRS the conditions in the rules are interpreted as reachability and type 3 is a syntactic restriction on the distribution of variables in rewrite rules which ensure that rewriting does not introduce fresh variables [6]. For the GCR category, eligible problems must be in TRS or MSTRS format. Being in HRS format is a prerequisite for problems to be selected for the HRS category. For the new COM and INF categories, problems must have the commutation and infeasibility tags, respectively. The respective formats are described in the next section. New in 2019 is the possibility for tool authors to submit secret problems just before the competition. These will be included in the selected problems.
Earlier editions of CoCo only considered problems stemming from the literature. This restriction was put in place to avoid bias towards one particular tool or technique. Since both COPS and CoCo have grown and diversified considerably since their inception, this restriction has become hard to maintain in a meaningful way, while at the same time losing its importance. Consequently it has been dropped for CoCo 2019. Further selection details are available from the CoCo website.
The certification categories (CPFTRS and CPFCTRS) are there to ensure that tools produce correct answers. In these categories tools have to produce certified (non)confluence proofs with their answers. The predominant approach to achieve this uses a combination of confluence prover and independent certifier. First the confluence prover analyses confluence as usual, restricting itself to criteria supported by the certifier. If it is successful the prover prints its proof in the certification problem format (CPF),^{6} which is then checked by the certifier. To ensure correctness of this check, soundness of the certifier is mechanized in a proof assistant like Isabelle/HOL. So far only one certifier has participated in CoCo: Open image in new window .^{7}
5 New Categories in 2019
5.1 Commutation
TRSs \(\mathcal {R}\) and \(\mathcal {S}\) commute if the inclusion Open image in new window holds. Commutation is an important generalization of confluence: Apart from direct applications in rewriting, e.g. for confluence,^{8} standardization, normalization, and relative termination, commutation is the basis of many results in computer science, like correctness of program transformations [7], and bisimulation upto [8].
Currently, commutation is supported by the tools CoLL [9] and FORT [10]. The former supports commutation versions of three established confluence techniques: development closedness [11], rule labeling [12], and an adaption of a confluence modulo result by Jouannaud and Kirchner [13]. The latter is a decision tool for the firstorder theory of rewriting based on tree automata techniques, but restricted to leftlinear rightground TRSs.
Commutation problems consist of two TRSs \(\mathcal {R}\) and \(\mathcal {S}\). The question to be answered is whether these commute. To ensure compatibility of the signatures of the involved TRSs, we rename function symbols and variables in \(\mathcal {S}\) on demand. Before we describe this precisely, we give an example of a commutation problem that illustrates the problem.
5.2 Infeasibility Problems
Infeasibility problems originate from different sources. Critical pairs in a conditional rewrite system are equipped with conditions. If no satisfying substitution for the variables in the conditions exists, the critical pair is harmless and can be ignored when analyzing confluence of the rewrite system in question. In this case the critical pair is said to be infeasible [14, Definition 7.1.8]. Sufficient conditions for infeasibility of conditional critical pairs are reported in [15, 16].
Another source of infeasibility problems is the dependency graph in termination analysis of rewrite systems [17]. An edge from dependency pair \(\ell _1 \rightarrow r_1\) to dependency pair \(\ell _2 \rightarrow r_2\) exists in the dependency graph if two substitutions \(\sigma \) and \(\tau \) can be found such that \(r_1\sigma \) rewrites to \(\ell _2\tau \). (By renaming the variables in the dependency pairs apart, a single substitution suffices.) If no substitutions exists, there is no edge, which may ease the task of proving termination of the underlying rewrite system [18, 19].
5.3 String Rewriting
The SRS category has been established to stimulate further research on confluence of string rewriting. In the Termination Competition^{9} there is an active community developing powerful techniques for (relative) termination of SRSs. We anticipate that these are beneficial when applied to confluence analysis.
6 Outlook
In the near future we plan to merge CoCo with COPS and CoCoWeb,^{10} a convenient web interface to execute the tools that participate in CoCo without local installation, to achieve a single entry point for confluence problems, tools, and competitions. Moreover, the submission interface of COPS will be extended with functionality to support submitters of new problems as well as the CoCo SC. We anticipate that in the years ahead new categories will be added to CoCo. Natural candidates are rewriting modulo AC and nominal rewriting.
Footnotes
Notes
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Nao Hirokawa for continuous support for the infrastructure of CoCo. Fabian Mitterwallner contributed to the inlining and renaming tools for the new commutation and infeasibility categories. Raúl Gutiérrez, Naoki Nishida, and Salvador Lucas contributed the initial set of infeasibility problems (COPS #818 – #936). Johannes Waldmann contributed challenging SRS problems (COPS #987 – #1036). Finally, we acknowledge the TOOLympics 2019 initiators for giving us the opportunity to present CoCo 2019.
References
 1.Stump, A., Sutcliffe, G., Tinelli, C.: StarExec: a crosscommunity infrastructure for logic solving. In: Demri, S., Kapur, D., Weidenbach, C. (eds.) IJCAR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8562, pp. 367–373. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319085876_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 2.Aoto, T., Hirokawa, N., Nagele, J., Nishida, N., Zankl, H.: Confluence competition 2015. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9195, pp. 101–104. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319214016_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.Aoto, T., et al.: Confluence competition 2018. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction. LIPIcs, vol. 108, pp. 32:1–32:5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2018.32
 4.Hirokawa, N., Nagele, J., Middeldorp, A.: Cops and CoCoWeb: infrastructure for confluence tools. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS, vol. 10900, pp. 346–353. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319942056_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 5.Mayr, R., Nipkow, T.: Higherorder rewrite systems and their confluence. Theor. Comput. Sci. 192(1), 3–29 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S03043975(97)001436MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Middeldorp, A., Hamoen, E.: Completeness results for basic narrowing. Appl. Algebr. Eng. Commun. Comput. 5, 213–253 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01190830MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Huet, G.: Confluent reductions: abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. J. ACM 27(4), 797–821 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1145/322217.322230MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 8.Pous, D.: New upto techniques for weak bisimulation. Theor. Comput. Sci. 380(1), 164–180 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2007.02.060MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 9.Shintani, K., Hirokawa, N.: CoLL: a confluence tool for leftlinear term rewrite systems. In: Felty, A.P., Middeldorp, A. (eds.) CADE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9195, pp. 127–136. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319214016_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.Rapp, F., Middeldorp, A.: FORT 2.0. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS, vol. 10900, pp. 81–88. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319942056_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.van Oostrom, V.: Developing developments. Theor. Comput. Sci. 175(1), 159–181 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S03043975(96)001739MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 12.Aoto, T.: Automated confluence proof by decreasing diagrams based on rulelabelling. In: Proceedings of 21st RTA. LIPIcs, vol. 6, pp. 7–16 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.RTA.2010.7
 13.Jouannaud, J.P., Kirchner, H.: Completion of a set of rules modulo a set of equations. SIAM J. Comput. 15(4), 1155–1194 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1137/0215084MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 14.Ohlebusch, E.: Advanced Topics in Term Rewriting. Springer, New York (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/9781475736618CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 15.Lucas, 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.2018.04.002MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 16.Sternagel, T., Middeldorp, A.: Infeasible conditional critical pairs. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Confluence, pp. 13–17 (2015)Google Scholar
 17.Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236, 133–178 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S03043975(99)002078MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., SchneiderKamp, P.: Proving and disproving termination of higherorder functions. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.) FroCoS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3717, pp. 216–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11559306_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 19.Middeldorp, A.: Approximating dependency graphs using tree automata techniques. In: Goré, R., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, pp. 593–610. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3540457445_49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 20.Nagele, J., Felgenhauer, B., Middeldorp, A.: Improving automatic confluence analysis of rewrite systems by redundant rules. In: Proceedings of 26th RTA. LIPIcs, vol. 36, pp. 257–268 (2015)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.