2008
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_44
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Context-Sensitive Dependency Pairs

Abstract: Abstract. Context-sensitive dependency pairs (CS-DPs) are currently the most powerful method for automated termination analysis of contextsensitive rewriting. However, compared to DPs for ordinary rewriting, CS-DPs suffer from two main drawbacks: (a) CS-DPs can be collapsing. This complicates the handling of CS-DPs and makes them less powerful in practice. (b) There does not exist a "DP framework " for CS-DPs which would allow one to apply them in a flexible and modular way. This paper solves drawback (a) by i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, in Section 6 we summarize our approach and its application in the examples, discuss its relationship to previous approaches and briefly touch the important perspective and open problem of (at least partially) automating the generation of suitable forbidden patterns in practice. 1 …”
Section: This Trs Is Non-terminating and Not Even Weakly Normalizingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, in Section 6 we summarize our approach and its application in the examples, discuss its relationship to previous approaches and briefly touch the important perspective and open problem of (at least partially) automating the generation of suitable forbidden patterns in practice. 1 …”
Section: This Trs Is Non-terminating and Not Even Weakly Normalizingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Proof of item (2) follows the results in [GM02b] and more precisely, the ones in [Emm08] that adapt them to the CSDP framework of [AEF+08]. For details about some statements in the following, we recall the reader to the corresponding lemmas in these papers to simplify the proof.…”
Section: Part IIImentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The proof of the previous lemma differs from the one in [AEF+08] in the refinement done in the notion of hiding context mentioned in [GL10] and it is slightly different from the one in [GL10] since we are dealing with innermost rewriting and all µ-replacing variables of the instantiated left-hand sides of the rules applied in a innermost µ-rewrite sequence are in µ-normal form: no matter if they are in a nonactive position on the right-hand side, they cannot start any reduction. In [GL10] it is not necessary either since in a µ-rewrite sequence, these variables could start a reduction but due to minimality, these reductions would be finite.…”
Section: Publications (Full Text)mentioning
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations