Rewriting Approximations for Fast Prototyping of Static Analyzers, RTA'07, pp.48-62, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-73449-9_6
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00463418
Improved Functional Flow and Reachability Analyses Using Indexed Linear Tree Grammars, of LIPIcs, Schloss Dagstuhl?Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2011. ,
Verification of Copy Protection Cryptographic Protocol using Approximations of Term Rewriting Systems, 2003. ,
The AVISPA Tool for the Automated Validation of Internet Security Protocols and Applications, LNCS, vol.3576, pp.281-285, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1007/11513988_27
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00000408
On tree automata that certify termination of left-linear term rewriting systems, RTA'05, pp.353-367, 2005. ,
Reachability Analysis over Term Rewriting Systems, Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol.37, issue.1?2, pp.3-4, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s10817-004-6246-0
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00071609
Equational approximations for tree automata completion, Journal of Symbolic Computation, vol.45, issue.5, pp.574-597, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jsc.2010.01.009
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00495405
Reachability analysis of rewriting for software verification, 2009. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00477013
Towards Static Analysis of Functional Programs Using Tree Automata Completion, WRLA'14, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-12904-4_8
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00921814
A Verification Technique Using Term Rewriting Systems and Abstract Interpretation, RTA'04, pp.119-133, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-25979-4_9
Regular Sets of Descendants for Constructor-Based Rewrite Systems, Proc. 6th LPAR Conf., Tbilisi (Georgia), 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-48242-3_10
Right-Linear Finite Path Overlapping Term Rewriting Systems Effectively Preserve Recognizability, LNCS, vol.1833, issue.11, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.1007/10721975_17
Reachability Analysis and Tree Automata Calculations ,
Term Rewriting and All That, 1998. ,
Decidable approximations of term rewriting systems, Proc. 7th RTA Conf, pp.362-376, 1996. ,
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-61464-8_65
Decidable approximations of sets of descendants and sets of normal forms, Proc. 9th RTA Conf., Tsukuba (Japan), pp.151-165, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1007/BFb0052368
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00073364
Finite Models vs Tree Automata in Safety Verification, RTA'12, pp.225-239, 2012. ,
Handling non leftlinear rules when completing tree automata, IJFCS, vol.20, issue.5 ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00561373
Regular tree languages and rewrite systems, Fundamenta Informaticae, vol.24, pp.157-175, 1995. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00538882
Tree automata for rewrite strategies, Journal of Symbolic Computation, vol.40, issue.1, pp.749-794, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jsc.2004.12.008
Closure of Tree Automata Languages under Innermost Rewriting, WRS'08, pp.23-38, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.entcs.2009.03.033
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00578966
The theory of ground rewrite systems is decidable, [1990] Proceedings. Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp.242-248, 1990. ,
DOI : 10.1109/LICS.1990.113750
Tree generating regular systems, Information and Control, vol.14, issue.2, pp.217-231, 1969. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0019-9958(69)90065-5
Deterministic tree pushdown automata and monadic tree rewriting systems, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol.37, issue.3, pp.367-394, 1988. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0022-0000(88)90014-1
URL : http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(88)90014-1
Bottom-up tree pushdown automata and rewrite systems, Proc. 4th RTA Conf., Como (Italy), pp.287-298, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-53904-2_104
Decidable call-by-need computations in term rewriting, Information and Computation, vol.196, issue.2, pp.4-18, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.ic.2004.10.003
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00338565
Decidability for left-linear growing term rewriting systems, LNCS, vol.1631, pp.256-270, 1999. ,
Layered Transducing Term Rewriting System and Its Recognizability Preserving Property, Proc. 13th RTA Conf, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-45610-4_8
Linear generalized semi-monadic rewrite systems effectively preserve recognizability, Theoretical Computer Science, vol.194, issue.1-2, pp.87-122, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0304-3975(96)00333-7
URL : http://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3975(96)00333-7
Left-linear bounded trss are inverse recognizability preserving, of LIPIcs, Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz- Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2011. ,
Finiteness of the set of E-equivalence classes is undecidable, 2010. ,
Certifying a Tree Automata Completion Checker, IJCAR'08, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_43
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00258275
All About Maude, A High-Performance Logical Framework, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.4350, 2007. ,
Equational abstractions, Equational abstractions, pp.239-264, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.tcs.2008.04.040
Automatic Approximation for the Verification of Cryptographic Protocols, Proc. of FASE'03, pp.34-48, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-40981-6_5
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00071986
Characterizing Conclusive Approximations by Logical Formulae, LNCS, vol.6945, issue.11, pp.72-84, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-24288-5_8
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00606100
A theoretical limit for safety verification techniques with regular fix-point computations, Information Processing Letters, vol.108, issue.1, pp.1-2, 2008. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.ipl.2008.03.012
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00328487
Flow analysis of lazy higher-order functional programs, Theoretical Computer Science, vol.375, issue.1-3, pp.120-136, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.tcs.2006.12.030
Higher-order multi-parameter tree transducers and recursion schemes for program verification, pp.495-508, 2010. ,
Verifying higher-order functional programs with pattern-matching algebraic data types, 2011. ,
Model Checking Higher-Order Programs, Journal of the ACM, vol.60, issue.3 ,
DOI : 10.1145/2487241.2487246
Tree Automata Completion for Static Analysis of Functional Programs, 2013. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00780124
Equational Abstraction Refinement for Certified Tree Regular Model Checking, ICFEM'12, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_22
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00759149
Reachability Analysis of Innermost Rewriting, RTA'15, LIPIcs, Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2015. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01194530
The Objective Caml system release 3.12 ? Documentation and user's manual, INRIA, 2012. ,
A Completion Algorithm for Lattice Tree Automata, CIAA'13, pp.134-145, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-39274-0_13
We prove this by contradiction Assume that there exist configurations c ,
the state q will no longer be new for ? ? {f (q 1 , . . . , q n ) ? q } and no other transition leading to q can be added except the same transition f (q 1, all following recursive calls of N orm ,
Assume that c ? q is added to N orm ? (t ? q) using the first case of the definition of N orm Then q = q but since c ? q ? ? this contradicts the fact that q is new for ?. Assume, now, that c ? q is added to N orm ? (t ? q) using the second case of the definition. As above, this means that c = f (q 1 , . . . , q n ) and one recursive call of N orm is of the form: {f (q 1 , . . . , q n ) ? q } ? N orm ??{f (q1,...,qn)?q } (C[q ] ? q). However, in this case of the definition, either the transition f (q 1 , . . . , q n ) ? q ? ? or q is a new state for ?. If f (q 1 ,