Synchronized Tree Languages for Reachability in Non-right-linear Term Rewrite Systems

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9942)

Abstract

Over-approximating the descendants (successors) of an initial set of terms under a rewrite system is used in reachability analysis. The success of such methods depends on the quality of the approximation. Regular approximations (i.e. those using finite tree automata) have been successfully applied to protocol verification and Java program analysis. In [2, 10], non-regular approximations have been shown more precise than regular ones. In [3] (fixed version of [2]), we have shown that sound over-approximations using synchronized tree languages can be computed for left-and-right-linear term rewriting systems (TRS). In this paper, we present two new contributions extending [3]. Firstly, we show how to compute at least all innermost descendants for any left-linear TRS. Secondly, a procedure is introduced for computing over-approximations independently of the applied rewrite strategy for any left-linear TRS.

Keywords

Term rewriting Tree languages Reachability analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Boichut, Y., Boyer, B., Genet, Th., Legay, A.: Equational abstraction refinement for certified tree regular model checking. In: Aoki, T., Taguchi, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7635, pp. 299–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boichut, Y., Chabin, J., Réty, P.: Over-approximating descendants by synchronized tree languages. In: RTA, vol. 21 of LIPIcs, pp. 128–142 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boichut, Y., Chabin, J., Réty, P.: Erratum of over-approximating descendants by synchronized tree languages. Technical report, LIFO, Université d’Orléans (2015). http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/rety/publications.html#erratum
  4. 4.
    Boichut, Y., Courbis, R., Héam, P.-C., Kouchnarenko, O.: Finer is better: abstraction refinement for rewriting approximations. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) RTA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5117, pp. 48–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boichut, Y., Héam, P.-C.: A theoretical limit for safety verification techniques with regular fix-point computations. IPL 108(1), 1–2 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouajjani, A., Habermehl, P., Rogalewicz, A., Vojnar, T.: Abstract regular (tree) model checking. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(2), 167–191 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Genet, T., Klay, F.: Rewriting for cryptographic protocol verification. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) CADE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1831, pp. 271–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genet, T., Salmon, Y.: Reachability analysis of innermost rewriting. In: RTA, vol. 36 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gouranton, V., Réty, P., Seidl, H.: Synchronized tree languages revisited and new applications. In: Honsell, F., Miculan, M. (eds.) FOSSACS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2030, p. 214. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kochems, J., Luke Ong, C.-H.: Improved functional flow and reachability analyses using indexed linear tree grammars. In: RTA, vol. 10 of LIPIcs, pp. 187–202 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Limet, S., Réty, P.: E-unification by means of tree tuple synchronized grammars. Discret. Math. Theorit. Comput. Sci. 1(1), 69–98 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Limet, S., Salzer, G.: Proving properties of term rewrite systems via logic programs. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Limet, S., Salzer, G.: Tree tuple languages from the logic programming point of view. J. Autom. Reason. 37(4), 323–349 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIFO - Université d’OrléansOrléans cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations