Advertisement

Characterizing Conclusive Approximations by Logical Formulae

  • Yohan Boichut
  • Thi-Bich-Hanh Dao
  • Valérie Murat
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6945)

Abstract

Considering an initial set of terms E, a rewriting relation \(\mathcal{R}\) and a goal set of terms Bad, reachability analysis in term rewriting tries to answer to the following question: does there exists at least one term of Bad that can be reached from E using the rewriting relation \(\mathcal{R}\)?

Some of the approaches try to show that there exists at least one term of Bad reachable from E using the rewriting relation \(\mathcal{R}\) by computing the set of reachable terms. Some others tackle the unreachability problem i.e. no term of Bad is reachable by rewriting from E. For the latter, over-approximations are computed. A main obstacle is to be able to compute an over-approximation precise enough that does not intersect Bad i.e. a conclusive approximation. This notion of precision is often defined by a very technical parameter of techniques implementing this over-approximation approach. In this paper, we propose a new characterization of conclusive approximations by logical formulae generated from a new kind of automata called symbolic tree automata. Solving a such formula leads automatically to a conclusive approximation without extra technical parameters.

Keywords

Equivalence Class Logical Formula Horn Clause Symbolic State Reachability Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boichut, Y., Genet, T., Jensen, T., Leroux, L.: Rewriting Approximations for Fast Prototyping of Static Analyzers. In: Baader, F. (ed.) RTA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4533, pp. 48–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boichut, Y., Héam, P.-C.: A theoretical limit for safety verification techniques with regular fix-point computations. Inf. Process. Lett. 108(1), 1–2 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boichut, Y., Héam, P.-C., Kouchnarenko, O.: Approximation-based tree regular model-checking. Nord. J. Comput. 14(3), 216–241 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouajjani, A., Habermehl, P., Rogalewicz, A., Vojnar, T.: Abstract regular tree model checking. ENTCS 149(1), 37–48 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyer, B., Genet, T., Jensen, T.: Certifying a Tree Automata Completion Checker. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 523–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Comon, H., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Jacquemard, F., Lugiez, D., Löding, C., Tison, S., Tommasi, M.: Tree automata techniques and applications (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feuillade, G., Genet, T., Viet TriemTong, V.: Reachability Analysis over Term Rewriting Systems. Journal of Automated Reasonning 33(3-4), 341–383 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallagher, J., Rosendahl, M.: Approximating term rewriting systems: a horn clause specification and its implementation. In: Cervesato, I., Veith, H., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5330, pp. 682–696. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genet, T.: Decidable approximations of sets of descendants and sets of normal forms. In: Nipkow, T. (ed.) RTA 1998. LNCS, vol. 1379, pp. 151–165. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genet, T., Klay, F.: Rewriting for Cryptographic Protocol Verification. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) CADE 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1831, pp. 271–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genet, T., Rusu, R.: Equational tree automata completion. JSC 45, 574–597 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilleron, R., Tison, S.: Regular tree languages and rewrite systems. Fundamenta Informaticae 24, 157–175 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gyenizse, P., Vágvölgyi, S.: Linear Generalized Semi-Monadic Rewrite Systems Effectively Preserve Recognizability. TCS 194(1-2), 87–122 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henriksen, J., Jensen, J., Jørgensen, M., Klarlund, N., Paige, B., Rauhe, T., Sandholm, A.: Mona: Monadic second-order logic in practice. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 89–110. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacquemard, F.: Decidable approximations of term rewriting systems. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) RTA 1996. LNCS, vol. 1103, pp. 362–376. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monniaux, D.: Abstracting Cryptographic Protocols with Tree Automata. In: Cortesi, A., Filé, G. (eds.) SAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1694, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takai, T.: A Verification Technique Using Term Rewriting Systems and Abstract Interpretation. In: van Oostrom, V. (ed.) RTA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3091, pp. 119–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takai, T., Kaji, Y., Seki, H.: Right-linear finite-path overlapping term rewriting systems effectively preserve recognizability. In: Bachmair, L. (ed.) RTA 2000. LNCS, vol. 1833, pp. 246–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yohan Boichut
    • 1
  • Thi-Bich-Hanh Dao
    • 1
  • Valérie Murat
    • 2
  1. 1.LIFO - Université OrléansFrance
  2. 2.IRISA - Université Rennes 1France

Personalised recommendations