You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Separation Logic with inductive definitions is a well-known approach for deductive verification of programs that manipulate dynamic data structures. Deciding verification conditions in this context is usually based on user-provided lemmas relating the inductive definitions. We propose a novel approach for generating these lemmas automatically which is based on simple syntactic criteria and deterministic strategies for applying them. Our approach focuses on iterative programs, although it can be applied to recursive programs as well, and specifications that describe not only the shape of the data structures, but also their content or their size. Empirically, we find that our approach is powerful enough to deal with sophisticated benchmarks, e.g., iterative procedures for searching, inserting, or deleting elements in sorted lists, binary search tress, red-black trees, and AVL trees, in a very efficient way.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We present a general automated proof procedure, based upon cyclic proof, for inductive entailments in separation logic. Our procedure has been implemented via a deep embedding of cyclic proofs in the HOL Light theorem prover. Experiments show that our mechanism is able to prove a number of non-trivial entailments involving inductive predicates.

[2]: We consider the problem of automated reasoning about dynamically manipulated data structures. The state-of-the-art methods are limited to the unfold-and-match (U+M) paradigm, where predicates are transformed via (un)folding operations induced from their definitions before being treated as uninterpreted. However, proof obligations from verifying programs with iterative loops and multiple function calls often do not succumb to this paradigm. Our contribution is a proof method which -- beyond U+M -- performs automatic formula re-writing by treating previously encountered obligations in each proof path as possible induction hypotheses. This enables us, for the first time, to systematically reason about a wide range of obligations, arising from practical program verification. We demonstrate the power of our proof rules on commonly used lemmas, thereby close the remaining gaps in existing state-of-the-art systems. Another impact, probably more important, is that our method regains the power of compositional reasoning, and shows that the usage of user-provided lemmas is no longer needed for the existing set of benchmarks. This not only removes the burden of coming up with the appropriate lemmas, but also significantly boosts up the verification process, since lemma applications, coupled with unfolding, often induce very large search space.
The method of cyclic proofs introduced by [1] and extended recently in [2] proves the entailment of two SL formulas by using induction on the paths of proof trees. They are not generating the lemma, but the method is able to (soundly) check intricate lemma given by the user, even ones which are out of the scope of our method, e.g., lemmas concerning the predicate @math which is defined by unfolding the list segments from the end, instead of the beginning. The cyclic proofs method can be seen like a dynamic lemma generation using complex reasoning on proof trees, while our method generates lemma statically by simple checks on the inductive definitions. We think that our lemma generator could be used in the cyclic proof method to cut proof trees.