A Proof Theory for Model Checking: An Extended Abstract

Several formal systems, such as resolution and minimal model semantics, provide a framework for logic programming. In this article, we will survey the use ofstructural proof theoryas an alternative foundation. Researchers have been using this foundation for the past 35 years to elevate logic programming from its roots in first-order classical logic into higher-order versions of intuitionistic and linear logic. These more expressive logic programming languages allow for capturing stateful computations and rich forms of abstractions, including higher-order programming, modularity, and abstract data types. Term-level bindings are another kind of abstraction, and these are given an elegant and direct treatment within both proof theory and these extended logic programming languages. Logic programming has also inspired new results in proof theory, such as those involving polarity and focused proofs. These recent results provide a high-level means for presenting the differences between forward-chaining and backward-chaining style inferences. Anchoring logic programming in proof theory has also helped identify its connections and differences with functional programming, deductive databases, and model checking.

Focused proofs are sequent calculus proofs that group inference rules into alternating positive and negative phases. These phases can then be used to define macro-level inference rules Gentzen’s original and tiny introduction and structural rules. We show here that the inference rules of labeled proof systems for modal logics can similarly be described as pairs of such phases within the LKF focused proof system for first-order classical logic. We consider the system $${ G3K} $$ of Negri for the modal logic $$K$$ and define a translation from labeled modal formulas into first-order polarized formulas and show a strict correspondence between derivations in the two systems, i.e., each rule application in $${ G3K} $$ corresponds to a bipole—a pair of a positive and a negative phases—in $${ LKF} $$ . Since geometric axioms (when properly polarized) induce bipoles, this strong correspondence holds for all modal logics whose Kripke frames are characterized by geometric properties. We extend these results to present a focused labeled proof system for this same class of modal logics and show its soundness and completeness. The resulting proof system allows one to define a rich set of normal forms of modal logic proofs.

In the last few years, argumentation frameworks have been successfully applied to multi agent systems. Recently, argumentation has been used to provide a framework for reasoning about coalition formation. At the same time alternating-time temporal logic has been used to reason about the behavior and abilities of coalitions of agents. However, ATL operators account only for the existence of successful strategies of coalitions. They do not consider whether coalitions can be actually formed.This paper is an attempt to combine both frameworks and to develop a logic through which we can reason at the same time (1) about abilities of coalitions of agents and (2) about the formation of coalitions. We provide a formal extension of ATL, ATLc, in which the actual computation of the coalition is modelled in terms of argumentation semantics. We show that ATLc's proof theory can be understood as a natural extension of the model checking procedure used in ATL.

In the paper a decision procedure for S5 is presented which uses a cut-free sequent calculus with additional rules allowing a reduction to normal modal forms. It utilizes the fact that in S5 every formula is equivalent to some 1-degree formula, i.e. a modally-flat formula with modal functors having only boolean formulas in its scope. In contrast to many sequent calculi (SC) for S5 the presented system does not introduce any extra devices. Thus it is a standard version of SC but with some additional simple rewrite rules. The procedure combines the proces of saturation of sequents with reduction of their elements to some normal modal form.

Logic of agreement: foundations, semantic system and proof theory

The topics of structural proof theory and logic programming have influenced each other for more than three decades. Proof theory has contributed the notion of sequent calculus, linear logic, and higher-order quantification. Logic programming has introduced new normal forms of proofs and forced the examination of logic-based approaches to the treatment of bindings. As a result, proof theory has responded by developing an approach to proof search based on focused proof systems in which introduction rules are organized into two alternating phases of rule application. Since the logic programming community can generate many examples and many design goals (e.g., modularity of specifications and higher-order programming), the close connections with proof theory have helped to keep proof theory relevant to the general topic of computational logic.

Model checkers use automated state exploration in order to prove various properties such as reachability, non-reachability, and bisimulation over state transition systems. While model checkers have proved valuable for locating errors in computer models and specifications, they can also be used to prove properties that might be consumed by other computational logic systems, such as theorem provers. In such a situation, a prover must be able to trust that the model checker is correct. Instead of attempting to prove the correctness of a model checker, we ask that it outputs its "proof evidence" as a formally defined document--a proof certificate--and that this document is checked by a trusted proof checker. We describe a framework for defining and checking proof certificates for a range of model checking problems. The core of this framework is a (focused) proof system that is augmented with premises that involve "clerk and expert" predicates. This framework is designed so that soundness can be guaranteed independently of any concerns for the correctness of the clerk and expert specifications. To illustrate the flexibility of this framework, we define and formally check proof certificates for reachability and non-reachability in graphs, as well as bisimulation and non-bisimulation for labeled transition systems. Finally, we describe briefly a reference checker that we have implemented for this framework.

By a semi-formal system we understand a proof system which includes infinitary inference rules. The use of inference rules with infinitely many premises was already suggested by David Hilbert in his paper “Die Grundlegung der elementaren Zahlentheorie” [6] and was later systematically used by Kurt Schutte in his work on proof theory. The heigths of proof trees in a semi-formal system are canonically measured by ordinals. Therefore, in contrast to Gentzen’s original approach, ordinals enter proof theoretic research via semi-formal systems in a completely canonical way.

International audience

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).

This paper argues that logical inferentialists should reject multiple-conclusion logics. Logical inferentialism is the position that the meanings of the logical constants are determined by the rules of inference they obey. As such, logical inferentialism requires a proof-theoretic framework within which to operate. However, in order to fulfil its semantic duties, a deductive system has to be suitably connected to our inferential practices. I argue that, contrary to an established tradition, multiple-conclusion systems are ill-suited for this purpose because they fail to provide a ‘natural’ representation of our ordinary modes of inference. Moreover, the two most plausible attempts at bringing multiple conclusions into line with our ordinary forms of reasoning, the disjunctive reading and the bilateralist denial interpretation, are unacceptable by inferentialist standards.

We design a proof system for propositional classical logic that integrates two languages for Boolean functions: standard conjunction-disjunction-negation and binary decision trees. We give two reasons to do so. The first is proof-theoretical naturalness: The system consists of all and only the inference rules generated by the single, simple, linear scheme of the recently introduced subatomic logic. Thanks to this regularity, cuts are eliminated via a natural construction. The second reason is that the system generates efficient proofs. Indeed, we show that a certain class of tautologies due to Statman, which cannot have better than exponential cut-free proofs in the sequent calculus, have polynomial cut-free proofs in our system. We achieve this by using the same construction that we use for cut elimination. In summary, by expanding the language of propositional logic, we make its proof theory more regular and generate more proofs, some of which are very efficient. That design is made possible by considering atoms as superpositions of their truth values, which are connected by self-dual, non-commutative connectives. A proof can then be projected via each atom into two proofs, one for each truth value, without a need for cuts. Those projections are semantically natural and are at the heart of the constructions in this article. To accommodate self-dual non-commutativity, we compose proofs in deep inference.

Theories of nonmonotonic reasoning are, on the face of it, of at least two sorts. In Circumscription , generic facts like Birds fly are taken to be essentially normative, and nonmonotonicity arises when individuals are assumed to be as normal as is consistent with available information about them. In theories like Default Logic such facts are taken to be rules of inference, and nonmonotonicity arises when available information is augmented by adding as many as possible of the inferences sanctioned by such rules. Depending on which of the two informal views is taken, different patterns of nonmonotonic reasoning are appropriate. Here it is shown that these different patterns of reasoning cannot be combined in a single theory of nonmonotonic reasoning. Introduction Nonmonotonic reasoning is that which lacks a monotonicity property which has been taken to be a characteristic of logical reasoning. In a theory of nonmonotonic reasoning, the consequences of a set of premises do not always accumulate as the set of premises is expanded. Nonmonotonicity has been researched in artificial intelligence because people reason nonmonotonically, and this in ways which seem directly related to intelligence. One important example of this is in commonsense reasoning about kinds, where jumping to conclusions enables intelligent agents to save time spent on gathering information. In just what way is such jumping to logically invalid conclusions reasonable?

CHAPTER 3 - Inference

Counterexamples produced by model checkers can be hard to grasp. Often it is not even evident why a trace violates a specification. We show how to provide easy-to-check evidence for the violation of a linear temporal logic (LTL) formula on a lasso word, based on a novel sound and complete proof system for LTL on lasso words. Valid proof trees in our proof system follow the syntactic structure of the formula and provide insight on why each Boolean or temporal operator is violated or satisfied. We introduce the notion of optimal proofs with respect to a user-specified preference order and identify sufficient conditions for efficiently computing optimal proofs. We design and evaluate an algorithm that performs this computation, demonstrating that it can produce optimal proofs for complex formulas in under a second.