Formalizing Bounded Increase

  • René Thiemann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7998)


Bounded increase is a termination technique where it is tried to find an argument x of a recursive function that is increased repeatedly until it reaches a bound b, which might be ensured by a condition x < b. Since the predicates like < may be arbitrary user-defined recursive functions, an induction calculus is utilized to prove conditional constraints.

In this paper, we present a full formalization of bounded increase in the theorem prover Isabelle/HOL. It fills one large gap in the pen-and-paper proof, and it includes generalized inference rules for the induction calculus as well as variants of the Babylonian algorithm to compute square roots. These algorithms were required to write executable functions which can certify untrusted termination proofs from termination tools that make use of bounded increase. And indeed, the resulting certifier was already useful: it detected an implementation error that remained undetected since 2007.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theoretical Computer Science 236, 133–178 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berghofer, S., Bulwahn, L., Haftmann, F.: Turning inductive into equational specifications. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berghofer, S., Wenzel, M.: Inductive datatypes in HOL - lessons learned in formal-logic engineering. In: Bertot, Y., Dowek, G., Hirschowitz, A., Paulin, C., Théry, L. (eds.) TPHOLs 1999. LNCS, vol. 1690, pp. 19–36. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanqui, F., Koprowski, A.: COLOR: A Coq library on well-founded rewrite relations and its application to the automated verification of termination certificates. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 21(4), 827–859 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Contejean, E., Courtieu, P., Forest, J., Pons, O., Urbain, X.: Automated certified proofs with CiME3. In: Proc. RTA 2011. LIPIcs, vol. 10, pp. 21–30 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giesl, J., Raffelsieper, M., Schneider-Kamp, P., Swiderski, S., Thiemann, R.: Automated termination proofs for Haskell by term rewriting. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 33(2), 7:1–7:39 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Swiderski, S., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Proving Termination by Bounded Increase. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 443–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) Proofs and examples available in technical report AIB-2007-03, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Haftmann, F., Nipkow, T.: Code generation via higher-order rewrite systems. In: Blume, M., Kobayashi, N., Vidal, G. (eds.) FLOPS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6009, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hong, H., Jakuš, D.: Testing positiveness of polynomials. Journal of Automated Reasoning 21(1), 23–38 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Krauss, A.: Partial and nested recursive function definitions in higher-order logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 44(4), 303–336 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krauss, A., Sternagel, C., Thiemann, R., Fuhs, C., Giesl, J.: Termination of Isabelle functions via termination of rewriting. In: van Eekelen, M., Geuvers, H., Schmaltz, J., Wiedijk, F. (eds.) ITP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6898, pp. 152–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lankford, D.: On proving term rewriting systems are Noetherian. Technical Report MTP-3, Louisiana Technical University, Ruston, LA, USA (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sternagel, C., Thiemann, R.: Signature extensions preserve termination. In: Dawar, A., Veith, H. (eds.) CSL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6247, pp. 514–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sternagel, C., Thiemann, R.: Certification of nontermination proofs. In: Beringer, L., Felty, A. (eds.) ITP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7406, pp. 266–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thiemann, R.: Executable Transitive Closures. In: The Archive of Formal Proofs (February 2012),
  20. 20.
    Thiemann, R., Sternagel, C.: Certification of termination proofs using CeTA. In: Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Urban, C., Wenzel, M. (eds.) TPHOLs 2009. LNCS, vol. 5674, pp. 452–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Urban, C.: Nominal reasoning techniques in Isabelle/HOL. Journal of Automated Reasoning 40(4), 327–356 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Urban, C., Kaliszyk, C.: General bindings and alpha-equivalence in Nominal Isabelle. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8(2) (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • René Thiemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations