Advertisement

Proving Non-looping Non-termination Automatically

  • Fabian Emmes
  • Tim Enger
  • Jürgen Giesl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7364)

Abstract

We introduce a technique to prove non-termination of term rewrite systems automatically. Our technique improves over previous approaches substantially, as it can also detect non-looping non-termination.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Brockschmidt, M., Ströder, T., Otto, C., Giesl, J.: Automated detection of non-termination and NullPointerExceptions for Java Bytecode. In: Damiani, F., Gurov, D. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2011. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2012) Available from [1]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geser, A., Zantema, H.: Non-looping string rewriting. Informatique Théorique et Applications 33(3), 279–302 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geser, A., Hofbauer, D., Waldmann, J.: Termination proofs for string rewriting systems via inverse match-bounds. J. Automated Reasoning 34(4), 365–385 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Proving and Disproving Termination of Higher-Order Functions. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.) FroCos 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3717, pp. 216–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. Journal of Automated Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Automating the dependency pair method. Information and Computation 199(1-2), 172–199 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oppelt, M.: Automatische Erkennung von Ableitungsmustern in nichtterminierenden Wortersetzungssystemen, Diploma Thesis, HTWK Leipzig, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Payet, É.: Loop detection in term rewriting using the eliminating unfoldings. Theoretical Computer Science 403, 307–327 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schernhammer, F., Gramlich, B.: VMTL–A Modular Termination Laboratory. In: Treinen, R. (ed.) RTA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5595, pp. 285–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waldmann, J.: Matchbox: A Tool for Match-Bounded String Rewriting. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 85–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, Y., Sakai, M.: On non-looping term rewriting. In: WST 2006, pp. 17-21 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zankl, H., Sternagel, C., Hofbauer, D., Middeldorp, A.: Finding and Certifying Loops. In: van Leeuwen, J., Muscholl, A., Peleg, D., Pokorný, J., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SOFSEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 5901, pp. 755–766. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zantema, H.: Termination of string rewriting proved automatically. Journal of Automated Reasoning 34, 105–139 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabian Emmes
    • 1
  • Tim Enger
    • 1
  • Jürgen Giesl
    • 1
  1. 1.LuFG Informatik 2RWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations