Difference between revisions of "Outermost"

From Termination-Portal.org
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 16: Line 16:
 
* René Thiemann suggests:
 
* René Thiemann suggests:
  
all TRSs where full termination has not already been proven.
+
All TRSs where full termination has not already been proven. If there is a special category of "interesting" outermost-examples then I suggest to add all non-terminating TRSs to this category. The reason is that these examples are interesting since only provers which are aware of the outermost-strategy can solve these examples.  
  
  
Line 42: Line 42:
 
50 * (number of problems solved) / (number of problems solved by winner).
 
50 * (number of problems solved) / (number of problems solved by winner).
 
Thus in theory a tool winning both categories obtains 100 points.
 
Thus in theory a tool winning both categories obtains 100 points.
 +
 +
* comment on Joerg's proposal (by René):
 +
 +
If the idea of a splitting is applied then I would count every valid answer for the "interesting" examples and not only the YES-answers.
  
 
== Participants ==
 
== Participants ==
Line 50: Line 54:
 
* Olivier Fissore, Isabelle Gnaedig, Hélène Kirchner (Cariboo)
 
* Olivier Fissore, Isabelle Gnaedig, Hélène Kirchner (Cariboo)
 
* Matthias Raffelsieper, Hans Zantema
 
* Matthias Raffelsieper, Hans Zantema
* Rene Thiemann (TTT)
+
* Christian Sternagel and Rene Thiemann (TTT2)
 
* Joerg Endrullis (Jambox)
 
* Joerg Endrullis (Jambox)
 
* Johannes Waldmann (Matchbox), but will need more time
 
* Johannes Waldmann (Matchbox), but will need more time

Revision as of 10:58, 3 November 2008

This page is to record the current status of the proposed Outermost Strategy Category of the Termination Competition.

The first installation of this event is planned for November 4, 2008.

Overview of the Event

It is a challenging topic to automatically prove termination of term rewriting with respect to outermost rewriting strategy. This strategy is especially interesting since it establishes the basis of lazy programming languages as Haskell, Miranda or Clean where programming with infinite structures is common practice and therefore full termination (with respect to an arbitrary strategy) cannot be expected.

Problem selection

  • René Thiemann suggests:

All TRSs where full termination has not already been proven. If there is a special category of "interesting" outermost-examples then I suggest to add all non-terminating TRSs to this category. The reason is that these examples are interesting since only provers which are aware of the outermost-strategy can solve these examples.


  • Hans Zantema:

I agree with Joerg that apart from these TRSs where full termination has not already been proven special TRSs with outermost strategy should be considered. Giving both of these subcategories equal weight is OK with me. The main point to be done now is to extend the present list of only 6 TRSs in TPDB with outermost strategy. I intend to submit some new systems; I hope other participants will do that too. A competiton does not make sense before this list has some reasonable size and content.

Scoring

  • Joerg Endrullis suggests:

If we use all TRSs where full termination has not already been proven, then these examples will dominate the outermost category. However this is no problem, since a balance can be reached by choosing an appropriate scoring.

I would suggest to split the score. That is, give 50 points for the tool that proves most of the examples with "STRATEGY OUTERMOST" terminating, and 50 points for the tool that proves most of the "TRSs where full termination has not already been proven" to be outermost terminating. The non-winning tools get in both categories 50 * (number of problems solved) / (number of problems solved by winner). Thus in theory a tool winning both categories obtains 100 points.

  • comment on Joerg's proposal (by René):

If the idea of a splitting is applied then I would count every valid answer for the "interesting" examples and not only the YES-answers.

Participants

insert your name here if you intend to participate.

  • Olivier Fissore, Isabelle Gnaedig, Hélène Kirchner (Cariboo)
  • Matthias Raffelsieper, Hans Zantema
  • Christian Sternagel and Rene Thiemann (TTT2)
  • Joerg Endrullis (Jambox)
  • Johannes Waldmann (Matchbox), but will need more time