A meta-notation for protocol analysis

This article aims to generate all theorems of a given size in the implicational fragment of propositional intuitionistic linear logic. It was presented at the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP).

Given a logic presented in a sequent calculus, a natural question is that of equivalence of proofs: to determine whether two given proofs are equated by any denotational semantics, ie any categorical interpretation of the logic compatible with its cut-elimination procedure. This notion can usually be captured syntactically by a set of rule permutations. Very generally, proofnets can be defined as combinatorial objects which provide canonical representatives of equivalence classes of proofs. In particular, the existence of proof nets for a logic provides a solution to the equivalence problem of this logic. In certain fragments of linear logic, it is possible to give a notion of proofnet with good computational properties, making it a suitable representation of proofs for studying the cut-elimination procedure, among other things. It has recently been proved that there cannot be such a notion of proofnets for the multiplicative (with units) fragment of linear logic, due to the equivalence problem for this logic being Pspace-complete. We investigate the multiplicative-additive (without unit) fragment of linear logic and show it is closely related to binary decision trees: we build a representation of proofs based on binary decision trees, reducing proof equivalence to decision tree equivalence, and give a converse encoding of binary decision trees as proofs. We get as our main result that the complexity of the proof equivalence problem of the studied fragment is Logspace-complete.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1502.01993

Recent development of logic programming languages based on linear logic suggests a successful direction to extend logic programming to be more expressive and more efficient. The treatment of formulasas-resources gives us not only powerful expressiveness, but also efficient access to a large set of data. However, in linear logic, whole resources are kept in one context, and there is no straight way to represent complex data structures as resources. For example, in order to represent an ordered list and time-dependent data, we need to put additional indices for each resource formula. This paper describes a logic programming language, called TLLP, based on intuitionistic temporal linear logic. This logic, an extension of linear logic with some features from temporal logics, allows the use of the modal operators '?'(next-time) and '?'(always) in addition to the operators used in intuitionistic linear logic. The intuitive meaning of modal operators is as follows: ? B means that B can be used exactly once at the next moment in time; ? B means that B can be used exactly once any time; !B means that B can be used arbitrarily many times (including 0 times) at any time. We first give a proof theoretic formulation of the logic of the TLLP language. We then present a series of resource management systems designed to implement not only interpreters but also compilers based on an extension of the standard WAM model.

1.1 Relationship between Petri net and linear logic Petri nets were first introduced by Petri in his seminal Ph.D. thesis, and both the theory and the applications of his model have flourished in concurrency theory (Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998a; Reisig & Rozenberg, 1998b). The relationships between Petri nets and linear logics have been studied by many researchers (Engberg & Winskel, 1997; Farwer, 1999; Hirai, 2000; Hirai 1999; Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001; Kamide, 2004, Kamide, 2006; Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994; LarcheyWendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000; Lilius, 1992; Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991; Okada, 1998; Tanabe, 1997). A category theoretical investigation of such a relationship was given by Mart -Oliet and Meseguer (Mart -Oliet & Meseguer, 1991), purely syntactical approach using Horn linear logic was established by Kanovich (Kanovich, 1995; Kanovich 1994), a naive phase linear logic for a certain class of Petri nets was given by Okada (Okada, 1998), a linear logical view of object Petri nets were studied by Farwer (Farwer, 1999), and various Petri net interpretations of linear logic using quantale models were obtained by Ishihara and Hiraishi (Ishihara & Hiraish, 2001), Engberg and Winskel (Engberg & Winskel, 1997), Larchey-Wendling and Galmiche (Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 1998; Larchey-Wendling & Galmiche, 2000), and Lilius (Lilius, 1992). Petri net interpretations using Kripke semantics for various fragments and extensions of intuitionistic linear logic were studied by Kamide (Kamide, 2004; Kamide, 2006c). In (Kamide, 2004), Petri net interpretations of various fragments of a spatio-temporal soft linear logic were discussed. In (Kamide, 2006c), Petri nets with inhibitor arcs, which were first introduced by Kosaraju (Kosaraju, 1973) to show the limitation of the usual Petri nets, were described using Kripke semantics for intuitionistic linear logic with strong negation. The approarches using Kripke semantics can obtain a very simple correspondence between Petri net and linear logic.

The Complexity of Local Proof Search in Linear Logic: (Extended Abstract)

In game semantics and related approaches to programming language semantics, programs are modelled by interaction dialogues. Such models have recently been used by a number of authors for the design of compilation methods, in particular for applications where resource control is important. The work in this area has focused on call-by-name languages. In this paper we study the compilation of call-by-value into a first-order low-level language by means of an interpretation in a semantic interactive model. We refine the methods developed for call-by-name languages to allow an efficient treatment of call-by-value. We introduce an intermediate language that is based on the structure of an interactive computation model and that can be seen as a fragment of Linear Logic. The main result is that Plotkin’s call-by-value cps-translation and its soundness proof can be refined to target this intermediate language. This refined cps-translation amounts to a direct compilation of the source language into a first-order language.

A graph-theoretic characterization theorem for multiplicative fragment of non-commutative linear logic

Encryption as an abstract data-type: An extended abstract

In 1958 J. Lambek introduced a calculusL of syntactic types and defined an equivalence relation on types: “x≡ y means that there exists a sequence x=x1,...,xn=y (n ≥ 1), such thatx i →x i+1 or xi+ →x i (1 ≤i ≤ n)”. He pointed out thatx ≡y if and only if there is joinz such thatx →z andy →z. This paper gives an effective characterization of this equivalence for the Lambeck calculiL andLP, and for the multiplicative fragments of Girard's and Yetter's linear logics. Moreover, for the non-directed Lambek calculusLP and the multiplicative fragment of Girard's linear logic, we present linear time algorithms deciding whether two types are equal, and finding a join for them if they are.

Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete

Probably the most significant result concerning cut-free sequent calculus proofs in linear logic is the completeness of focused proofs. This completeness theorem has a number of proof theoretic applications — e.g. in game semantics, Ludics, and proof search — and more computer science applications — e.g. logic programming, call-by-name/value evaluation. Andreoli proved this theorem for first-order linear logic 15 years ago. In the present paper, we give a new proof of the completeness of focused proofs in terms of proof transformation. The proof of this theorem is simple and modular: it is first proved for MALL and then is extended to full linear logic. Given its modular structure, we show how the proof can be extended to larger systems, such as logics with induction. Our analysis of focused proofs will employ a proof transformation method that leads us to study how focusing and cut elimination interact. A key component of our proof is the construction of a focalization graph which provides an abstraction over how focusing can be organized within a given cut-free proof. Using this graph abstraction allows us to provide a detailed study of atomic bias assignment in a way more refined that is given in Andreoli’s original proof. Permitting more flexible assignment of bias will allow this completeness theorem to help establish the completeness of a number of other automated deduction procedures. Focalization graphs can be used to justify the introduction of an inference rule for multifocus derivation: a rule that should help us better understand the relations between sequentiality and concurrency in linear logic.

Glue Semantics (Glue) is a general framework for semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. The framework grew out of an interdisciplinary collaboration at the intersection of formal linguistics, formal logic, and computer science. Glue assumes a separate level of syntax; this can be any syntactic framework in which syntactic structures have heads. Glue uses a fragment of linear logic for semantic composition. General linear logic terms in Glue meaning constructors are instantiated relative to a syntactic parse. The separation of the logic of composition from structural syntax distinguishes Glue from other theories of semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. It allows Glue to capture semantic ambiguity, such as quantifier scope ambiguity, without necessarily positing an ambiguity in the syntactic structure. Glue is introduced here in relation to four of its key properties, which are used as organizing themes: resource-sensitive composition, flexible composition, autonomy of syntax, and syntax/semantics non-isomorphism.

We present a matrix characterization of logical validity in the multiplicative fragment of linear logic. On this basis we develop a matrix-based proof search procedure for this fragment and a procedure which translates the machine-found proofs back into the usual sequent calculus for linear logic. Both procedures are straightforward extensions of methods which originally were developed for a uniform treatment of classical, intuitionistic and modal logics. They can be extended to further fragments of linear logic once a matrix characterization has been found.KeywordsModal LogicIntuitionistic LogicLinear LogicSequent CalculusSequent RuleThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Recently, linear Logic has been used to specify sequent calculus proof systems in such a way that the proof search in linear logic can yield proof search in the specified logic. Furthermore, the meta-theory of linear logic can be used to draw conclusions about the specified sequent calculus. For example, derivability of one proof system from another can be decided by a simple procedure that is implemented via bounded logic programming-style search. Also, simple and decidable conditions on the linear logic presentation of inference rules, called homogeneous and coherence, can be used to infer that the initial rules can be restricted to atoms and that cuts can be eliminated. In the present paper we introduce Llinda, a logical framework based on linear logic augmented with inference rules for definition (fixed points) and induction. In this way, the above properties can be proved entirely inside the framework. To further illustrate the power of Llinda, we extend the definition of coherence and provide a new, semi-automated proof of cut-elimination for Girard’s Logic of Unicity (LU).

From multiple sequent for additive linear logic to decision procedures for free lattices