Skip to main content

Proving Termination Using Recursive Path Orders and SAT Solving

  • Conference paper
Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCoS 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4720))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We introduce a propositional encoding of the recursive path order with status (RPO). RPO is a combination of a multiset path order and a lexicographic path order which considers permutations of the arguments in the lexicographic comparison. Our encoding allows us to apply SAT solvers in order to determine whether a given term rewrite system is RPO-terminating. Furthermore, to apply RPO within the dependency pair framework, we combined our novel encoding for RPO with an existing encoding for argument filters. We implemented our contributions in the termination prover AProVE. Our experiments show that due to our encoding, combining termination provers with SAT solvers improves the performance of RPO-implementations by orders of magnitude.

Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG under grant GI 274/5-1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theoretical Computer Science 236, 133–178 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Codish, M., Lagoon, V., Stuckey, P.J.: Solving partial order constraints for LPO termination. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) RTA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 4–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Codish, M., Schneider-Kamp, P., Lagoon, V., Thiemann, R., Giesl, J.: SAT solving for argument filterings. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 30–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Comon, H., Treinen, R.: Ordering constraints on trees. In: Tison, S. (ed.) CAAP 1994. LNCS, vol. 787, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Dershowitz, N.: Orderings for term-rewriting systems. Theoretical Computer Science 17, 279–301 (1982)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Endrullis, J., Waldmann, J., Zantema, H.: Matrix interpretations for proving termination of term rewriting. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fuhs, C., Giesl, J., Middeldorp, A., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R., Zankl, H.: SAT solving for termination analysis with polynomial interpretations. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) Proc. SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 340–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: The dependency pair framework: Combining techniques for automated termination proofs. In: Baader, F., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3452, pp. 301–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. Journal of Automated Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool: Techniques and features. Information and Computation 205(4), 474–511 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofbauer, D., Waldmann, J.: Termination of string rewriting with matrix interpretations. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) RTA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 328–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamin, S., Lévy, J.J.: Two generalizations of the recursive path ordering. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Illinois, IL, USA (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kurihara, M., Kondo, H.: Efficient BDD encodings for partial order constraints with application to expert systems in software verification. In: Orchard, B., Yang, C., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3029, pp. 827–837. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kusakari, K., Nakamura, M., Toyama, Y.: Argument filtering transformation. In: Nadathur, G. (ed.) PPDP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1702, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Lescanne, P.: Computer experiments with the REVE term rewriting system generator. In: Demers, A., Teitelbaum, T. (eds.) Proc. POPL 1983, pp. 99–108 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marché, C., Zantema, H.: The termination competition. In: Baader, F. (ed.) Proc. RTA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4533, pp. 303–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. SAT4J satisfiability library for Java, http://www.sat4j.org

  21. The termination problem data base, http://www.lri.fr/~marche/tpdb/

  22. Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In: Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, pp. 115–125 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zankl, H., Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Constraints for argument filterings. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 579–590. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Zankl, H., Middeldorp, A.: Satisfying KBO constraints. In: Baader, F. (ed.) RTA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4533, pp. 389–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Boris Konev Frank Wolter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R., Annov, E., Codish, M., Giesl, J. (2007). Proving Termination Using Recursive Path Orders and SAT Solving. In: Konev, B., Wolter, F. (eds) Frontiers of Combining Systems. FroCoS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4720. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74621-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74621-8_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74620-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74621-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics