An Abstract B ö hm Normalization John Glauert & Zurab Khasidashvili UEA, UKBIU&Intel, Israel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recognising Languages We will tackle the problem of defining languages by considering how we could recognise them. Problem: Is there a method of recognising.
Advertisements

CS848: Topics in Databases: Foundations of Query Optimization Topics covered  Introduction to description logic: Single column QL  The ALC family of.
Finite-state Recognizers
Introduction The concept of transform appears often in the literature of image processing and data compression. Indeed a suitable discrete representation.
Lecture 16 Deterministic Turing Machine (DTM) Finite Control tape head.
Vered Gafni – Formal Development of Real Time Systems 1 Statecharts Semantics.
 Dr. Vered Gafni 1 LTL Decidability Enables consistency check, but also base for verification.
Lecture 6 Hyperreal Numbers (Nonstandard Analysis)
Possibilistic and probabilistic abstraction-based model checking Michael Huth Computing Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
Math 3121 Abstract Algebra I
An Abstract Bohm Normalization John Glauert & zurab Khasidashvili (1) UEA, UK; (2) BIU&Intel, Israel.
EECS 20 Lecture 38 (April 27, 2001) Tom Henzinger Review.
A Semantic Characterization of Unbounded-Nondeterministic Abstract State Machines Andreas Glausch and Wolfgang Reisig 1.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.
Introduction to Computability Theory
Transparency No. 4-1 Formal Language and Automata Theory Chapter 4 Patterns, Regular Expressions and Finite Automata (include lecture 7,8,9) Transparency.
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture 4 Context-free grammars Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Logic in Computer Science Transparency No Chapter 3 Propositional Logic 3.6. Propositional Resolution 3.7. Natural Deduction.
Validating Streaming XML Documents Luc Segoufin & Victor Vianu Presented by Harel Paz.
104 Closure Properties of Regular Languages Regular languages are closed under many set operations. Let L 1 and L 2 be regular languages. (1) L 1  L 2.
Chapter 3 Propositional Logic
01/27/2005 Combinationality of cyclic definitions EECS 290A – Spring 2005 UC Berkeley.
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 8: Automata Theory VI (PDA, PDA = CFG)
Chapter 7 Reasoning about Knowledge by Neha Saxena Id: 13 CS 267.
Relations Chapter 9.
Sets.
Equational Reasoning Math Foundations of Computer Science.
Regular Model Checking Ahmed Bouajjani,Benget Jonsson, Marcus Nillson and Tayssir Touili Moran Ben Tulila
Linear Algebra Chapter 4 Vector Spaces.
CS848: Topics in Databases: Foundations of Query Optimization Topics Covered  Databases  QL  Query containment  More on QL.
Database Systems Normal Forms. Decomposition Suppose we have a relation R[U] with a schema U={A 1,…,A n } – A decomposition of U is a set of schemas.
CS 2104 Prog. Lang. Concepts Dr. Abhik Roychoudhury School of Computing Introduction.
Testing Theory cont. Introduction Categories of Metrics Review of several OO metrics Format of Presentation CEN 5076 Class 6 – 10/10.
Intro. to Logic CS402 Fall Propositional Calculus - Semantics (2/3) Propositional Calculus - Semantics (2/3) Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept.
Basics of automata theory
Learning DFA from corrections Leonor Becerra-Bonache, Cristina Bibire, Adrian Horia Dediu Research Group on Mathematical Linguistics, Rovira i Virgili.
DECIDABILITY OF PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC USING FINITE AUTOMATA Presented by : Shubha Jain Reference : Paper by Alexandre Boudet and Hubert Comon.
Chapter 9. Chapter Summary Relations and Their Properties n-ary Relations and Their Applications (not currently included in overheads) Representing Relations.
Pushdown Automata (PDAs)
XML Data Management 10. Deterministic DTDs and Schemas Werner Nutt.
Chapter 9. Section 9.1 Binary Relations Definition: A binary relation R from a set A to a set B is a subset R ⊆ A × B. Example: Let A = { 0, 1,2 } and.
Lparse Programs Revisited: Semantics and Representation of Aggregates Guohua Liu and Jia-Huai You University of Alberta Canada.
CISC 2315 Discrete Structures Professor William G. Tanner, Jr. Spring 2011 Slides created by James L. Hein, author of Discrete Structures, Logic, and Computability,
Prof. Diletta Romana Cacciagrano. (red-cong) :
Rewriting Logic Model of Compositional Abstraction of Aspect-Oriented Software FOAL '10Mar. 15, 2010 Yasuyuki Tahara, Akihiko Ohsuga The University of.
Lecture 81 Regional Automaton CS 5270 Lecture 8. Lecture 82 What We Need to Do Problem: –We need to analyze the timed behavior of a TTS. –The timed behavior.
By J. Burns and J. Pachl Based on a presentation by Irina Shapira and Julia Mosin Uniform Self-Stabilization 1 P0P0 P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 P4P4 P5P5.
I-Neighbourhood Abstraction in Graph Transformation Arend Rensink University of Twente Based on work with: Jörg Bauer, Iovka Boneva, Dino Distefano, Marcus.
CS 321 Programming Languages and Compilers Lectures 16 & 17 Introduction to Formal Languages Regular Languages Lexical Analysis.
Fall 2015 COMP 2300 Discrete Structures for Computation Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Physics North Carolina Central University 1.
CS848: Topics in Databases: Information Integration Topics covered  Databases  QL  Query containment  An evaluation of QL.
Weak Bisimilarity Coalgebraically Andrei Popescu Department of Computer Science University of Illinois.
VERIFICATION OF PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS MONOTONIC ABSTRACTION IN PARAMETERIZED SYSTEMS NAVNEETA NAVEEN PATHAK Parosh Aziz Abdullah, Giorgio Delzanno, Ahmed.
Chapter 9. Chapter Summary Relations and Their Properties n-ary Relations and Their Applications (not currently included in overheads) Representing Relations.
Lecture 21 Reducibility. Many-one reducibility For two sets A c Σ* and B c Γ*, A ≤ m B if there exists a Turing-computable function f: Σ* → Γ* such that.
Transparency No. 4-1 Formal Language and Automata Theory Chapter 4 Patterns, Regular Expressions and Finite Automata (include lecture 7,8,9) Transparency.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA.
Algorithms for hard problems Automata and tree automata Juris Viksna, 2015.
Process Algebra (2IF45) Basic Process Algebra Dr. Suzana Andova.
Today’s Agenda  Quiz 4  Temporal Logic Formal Methods in Software Engineering1.
What is a matroid? A matroid M is a finite set E, with a set I of subsets of E satisfying: 1.The empty set is in I 2.If X is in I, then every subset of.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Description Logics: family of languages.
Arvind Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory M.I.T. L03-1 September 14, 2006http:// -calculus: A Basis for.
Relations and Graphs Relations and Graphs Sanjay Jain, Lecturer, School of Computing.
7/7/20161 Formal Methods in software development a.a.2015/2016 Prof.Anna Labella.
Formal Methods in software development
Non-regular languages
ISA 763 Security Protocol Verification
Formal Methods in software development
Finite-State Machines with No Output
Presentation transcript:

An Abstract B ö hm Normalization John Glauert & Zurab Khasidashvili UEA, UKBIU&Intel, Israel

Overview Normalization by neededness Relative normalization Abstract relative normalization Infinite results of finite terms Stability, regularity and superstability Böhm normalization and minimality results Conclusions

Normalization by neededness Developed by Huet & Lévy, In an orthogonal TRS, a redex in term t is needed if its residual is constructed in every normalizing reduction of t. If t has a normal form, it can be found by repeatedly contracting needed redexes.

Normalization wrt other sets of normal forms Barendregt et al. studied normalization wrt head-normal forms, in the  calculus; Maranget - weak-head-normal forms; Nöcker – constructor head-normal forms Middeldorp – root-stable forms; Glauert & Khasidashvili formalized a well- behaved concept of ‘partial results’.

Relative neededness & stable sets of results Let S be a set of terms. A redex u in term t is S-needed if any S-normalizing reduction starting from t contracts a residual of u. A set S of terms is stable if: – It is closed under reduction; – Every step entering S is S-needed.

A non-stable set A non-stable set: Set S={I(x),x}. Reduction relation: R ={I(x)  x}. Term I(I(x)) has no S-needed redex; it has an S-normal form (actually, it has two). I(x) I(I(x)) x S

Normalization wrt a reduction Let P: t  …  s be a reduction. A redex u in t is P-needed if it is contracted in any reduction Lévy-equivalent to P. P is self-needed or standard if it only contracts P- needed redexes. For ‘regular’ reductions P, we have shown that by contracting P-needed P-erased redexes we can built standard reductions Lévy-equivalent to P.

L é vy-equivalence Lévy-equivalence on finite co-initial reductions is generated by the axioms: – U+V/U= L V+V/U; – P=P'  N+P+Q = L N+P'+Q. where U (resp. V) denotes complete development of redex set U, and U/V denotes the set of residuals of redexes in U after performing V, as well as the corresponding complete development.

L é vy-equivalence (cont.) Klop diagram: P = L Q  P/Q=Q/P= **** ** **** * *** ***** ** **** P Q/P P/Q Q

Deterministic Residual Structures (DRS) A DRS consists of – An Abstract Reduction System A=(Ter,Red,  ) Ter is set of objects, called terms Red is set of redexes (or redex occurrences)  associates to every redex its source and target terms; redexes are written u : t  s A term may have a finite number of redexes – A residual relation, denoted /, between redexes in the source and target terms of .

Deterministic Residual Structures (cont.) / satisfies three ‘permutation’ axioms: – If t  s, then a redex u  s may be a residual of at most one redex v  t; otherwise u is created; – u/u =  (empty reduction); – All developments terminate; all complete developments of a set U of redexes in t end at the same term; and residuals of a redex v  t under all complete developments of U are the same.

Deterministic Residual Structures (cont.) The residual relation extends to finite reductions by transitivity, and Lévy equivalence can be defined. / satisfies an ‘advanced’ axiom: – [weak acyclicity] (E.Stark [Sta89]) u/v =  & u ≠ v  v/u ≠ .

Stable DRSs A DRS is stable if in addition the following axiom is satisfied: – [stability] (modification of [GLM’92]) u≠v & u creates w  v/u creates w/(v/u)..... u u/v v * w w/(v/u) v/u **

Define P Q iff P/Q= . Theorem: Let  be a set of reductions starting from t. Then -meet  of reductions in  can be computed as follows: –  U + (  /U) where U is the set of all redexes t such that: U  -embedding L LLLLLL

Relative neededness Let S be a set of reductions in a DRS. We call a redex u  t S-unneeded if there is a Q : t  … in S that is external to u (i.e., Q does not contract residuals of u), and is S- needed otherwise. A reduction with S-(un)needed steps is S-(un)needed.

Stable ordering: Let S be a set of reductions in a DRS If P and Q are finite, define P Q iff P/Q is S-unneeded. If P and/or Q are infinite, define P Q iff for any initial part P' of P there is an initial part Q' of Q such that P' Q'. S-equivalence: P = S Q iff P Q & Q P. SSSSS S

Stable sets of reductions A set S of reductions is called stable iff: – P'  S & P'+P''  S  P''  S; – P  S & P Q  Q  S; – Every non-empty P  S contracts at least one S-needed redex. The second axiom implies that a stable S is closed under Lévy-equivalence. S

A non-stable L é vy -equivalence class of reductions Each horizontal step creates next horizontal step; Vertical steps are residuals.. Ø v1v1 u1u1 u' 2 u' 1 v0v0 v' 1 v' u0u0.... v2v2 u2u2 Ø Ø Ø

Regular and superstable sets A set S of reductions is called regular iff: – In no term can an S-unneeded redex duplicate an S-needed redex S is called superstable iff: – For any S-normalizable term t, S contains a unique, up to = L, - minimal reduction starting from t. Such reductions are called S-minimal. L

A regular stable but not superstable set t u t2t2 s2s2 v t1t1 s1s1 v1v1 u1u1 t't' u2u2 u' 2 u' 1 o2o2 o1o1 v2v2 v' 1 v' 2 S

B ö hm-trees A head-normal form is a  term of the form  x 1 …x n.yN 1 …N m. The Böhm-tree BM(t) of a  term t is defined as follows: – BT(M)=  x 1 …x k.y where x 1 …x k.yM 1 …M r is hnf of t. BT(M 1 ) …BT(M r )

Computing B ö hm-trees Computation of Böhm-trees may involve infinite reductions. We showed the set of reductions computing Böhm-trees is stable and regular. We also checked that reductions computing lazy-trees- or Lévy-Longo-trees are stable and regular.

B ö hm normalization P : t 0  t 1  … is S-needed fair if for any S-needed redex v i  t i, v i P i, where P i is the suffix of P starting from t i. A redex u  t is S-erased if it does not have a residual under any S-normalizing reduction starting from t. S

B ö hm normalization (cont.) Theorem: Let S be a regular set of reductions, and let t be S-normalizable. – Any S-needed fair reduction starting from t is S-normalizing. – If S contains a finite reduction starting from t, then t does not have a reduction in which infinitely many times S-needed redexes are contracted.

A characterization of superstability Theorem: Let S be a regular stable set of terms, in an SDRS. Then S is superstable iff any S-normalizable term t not in S contains an S-erased S-needed redex.

Minimal relative normalization Theorem: Let S be a superstable set of terms in an SDRS, and let t be an S- normalizable term not in S. S-minimal S- normalizing reductions arise from repeatedly contracting S-needed S-erased redexes. A finite number of S-unneeded but S-erased redexes may also be contracted without loosing S-minimality.

Related work On Abstract reductions with residuals: – Started by Stark, and by Gonthier, Lévy and Melliès; further developed by Melliès. On minimal reductions: – Our early minimality results (for orthogonal ERSs) were inspired by Maranget. – Melliès later proved a minimality result by using nesting axioms, for finite results.

Conclusions We have unified our earlier relative and discrete normalization results. We use this abstract framework in a number of articles to study operational, denotational as well as event based semantics of orthogonal rewrite systems. Generalizing these results to infinite terms (with infinitely many redexes) requires enriching SDRSs with axioms studied by Kennaway (CWI report).