Cyclic Proofs with Ordering Constraints

Transitive closure logic is a known extension of first-order logic obtained by introducing a transitive closure operator. While other extensions of first-order logic with inductive definitions are a priori parametrized by a set of inductive definitions, the addition of the transitive closure operator uniformly captures all finitary inductive definitions. In this paper we present an infinitary proof system for transitive closure logic which is an infinite descent-style counterpart to the existing (explicit induction) proof system for the logic. We show that, as for similar systems for first-order logic with inductive definitions, our infinitary system is complete for the standard semantics and subsumes the explicit system. Moreover, the uniformity of the transitive closure operator allows semantically meaningful complete restrictions to be defined using simple syntactic criteria. Consequently, the restriction to regular infinitary (i.e. cyclic) proofs provides the basis for an effective system for automating inductive reasoning.

A cyclic proof system, called CLKID-omega, gives us another way of representing inductive definitions and efficient proof search. The 2005 paper by Brotherston showed that the provability of CLKID-omega includes the provability of LKID, first order classical logic with inductive definitions in Martin-L\"of's style, and conjectured the equivalence. The equivalence has been left an open question since 2011. This paper shows that CLKID-omega and LKID are indeed not equivalent. This paper considers a statement called 2-Hydra in these two systems with the first-order language formed by 0, the successor, the natural number predicate, and a binary predicate symbol used to express 2-Hydra. This paper shows that the 2-Hydra statement is provable in CLKID-omega, but the statement is not provable in LKID, by constructing some Henkin model where the statement is false.

Formal reasoning about inductively defined relations and structures is widely recognized not only for its mathematical interest but also for its importance in computer science, and has applications in verifying properties of programs and algorithms. Recently, several proof systems of inductively defined predicates based on sequent calculus including the cyclic proof system CLKID-omega and the infinite-descent proof system LKID-omega have attracted much attention. Although the relation among their provabilities has been clarified so far, the logical complexity of these systems has not been much studied. The infinite-descent proof system LKID-omega is an infinite proof system for inductive definitions and allows infinite paths in proof figures. It serves as a basis for the cyclic proof system. This paper shows that the logical complexity of the provability in LKID-omega is (Pi-1-1)-complete. To show this, first it is shown that the validity for inductive definitions in standard models is equivalent to the validity for inductive definitions in standard term models. Next, using this equivalence, this paper extends the truth predicate of omega-languages, as given in Girard's textbook, to inductive definitions by employing arithmetical coding of inductive definitions. This shows that the validity of inductive definitions in standard models is a (Pi-1-1) relation. Then, using the completeness of LKID-omega for standard models, it is shown that the logical complexity of the provability in LKID-omega is (Pi-1-1)-complete.

We present sound and complete sequent calculi for the modal mu-calculus with converse modalities, aka two-way modal mu-calculus. Notably, we introduce a cyclic proof system wherein proofs can be represented as finite trees with back-edges, i.e., finite graphs. The sequent calculi incorporate ordinal annotations and structural rules for managing them. Soundness is proved with relative ease as is the case for the modal mu-calculus with explicit ordinals. The main ingredients in the proof of completeness are isolating a class of non-wellfounded proofs with sequents of bounded size, called slim proofs, and a counter-model construction that shows slimness suffices to capture all validities. Slim proofs are further transformed into cyclic proofs by means of re-assigning ordinal annotations.

First-order logic (FOL) is evidently insufficient for the many applications of logic in computer science, mainly due to its inability to provide inductive definitions. Therefore, only an extension of FOL which allows finitary inductive definitions can be used as a framework for automated reasoning. The minimal logic that is suitable for this goal is Ancestral Logic (AL), which is an extension of FOL by a transitive closure operator. In order for AL to be able to serve as a reasonable (and better) substitute to the use of FOL in computer science, it is crucial to develop adequate, user-friendly proof systems for it. While the expressiveness of AL renders any effective proof system for it incomplete with respect to the standard semantics, there are useful approximations. In this paper we show that such a Gentzen-style approximation is both sound and complete with respect to a natural, computationally-meaningful Henkin-style semantics for AL.

This paper studies an extension of inductive definitions in the context of a type-free theory. It is a kind of simultaneous inductive definition of two predicates where the defining formulas are monotone with respect to the first predicate, but not monotone with respect to the second predicate. We call this inductive definition half-monotone in analogy of Allen’s term half-positive. We can regard this definition as a variant of monotone inductive definitions by introducing a refined order between tuples of predicates. We give a general theory for half-monotone inductive definitions in a type-free first-order logic. We then give a realizability interpretation to our theory, and prove its soundness by extending Tatsuta’s technique. The mechanism of half-monotone inductive definitions is shown to be useful in interpreting many theories, including the Logical Theory of Constructions, and Martin-Löf’s Type Theory. We can also formalize the provability relation “a term p is a proof of a proposition P” naturally. As an application of this formalization, several techniques of program/proof-improvement can be formalized in our theory, and we can make use of this fact to develop programs in the paradigm of Constructive Programming. A characteristic point of our approach is that we can extract an optimization program since our theory enjoys the program extraction theorem.

Mechanically certifying formula-based Noetherian induction reasoning

"This book describes the aspects of mathematical logic related to computer sciences. The materials adopted in this book are intended to attend to both the peculiarities of logical systems and the requirements of computer science."

Current approaches to analyzing dynamic systems are mostly grounded in propositional (temporal) logics. As a consequence, they often lack expressivity for modelling rich data structures and reasoning about them in the course of a computation. To address this problem, we propose a rich modelling framework based on first-order logic over background theories (arithmetics, lists, records, etc) and state transition systems over corresponding interpretations. On the reasoning side, we introduce a tableau calculus for bounded model checking of properties expressed in a certain fragment of CTL* over that first-order logic. We also describe a k-induction scheme on top of that calculus for proving safety properties, and we report on first experiments with a prototypical implementation.

By Gentzen's famous Hauptsatz the cut-elimination theorem every proof in sequent calculus for first-order logic with cuts can be transformed into a cut-free proof; cut-free proofs are analytic and consist entirely of syntactic material of the end-sequent the proven theorem. But in systems with induction rules, cut-elimination is either impossible or does not produce proofs with the subformula property. One way to overcome this problem is to formulate induction proofs as infinite sequences of proofs in a uniform way and to develop a method, which yields a uniform description of the corresponding cut-free proofs. We present such a formalism, as an alternative to systems with induction rules, and define a corresponding cut-elimination method based on the CERES-method for first-order logic. The basic tools of proof theory, such as sequent- and resolution calculi are enriched with inductive definitions and schemata of terms, formulas, proofs, etc. We define a class of inductive proofs which can be transformed into this formalism and subjected to schematic cut-elimination.

Checking the soundness of cyclic induction reasoning for first-order logic with inductive definitions (FOLID) is decidable but the standard checking method is based on an exponential complement operation for B\"uchi automata. Recently, we introduced a polynomial checking method whose most expensive steps recall the comparisons done with multiset path orderings. We describe the implementation of our method in the Cyclist prover. Referred to as E-Cyclist, it successfully checked all the proofs included in the original distribution of Cyclist. Heuristics have been devised to automatically define, from the analysis of the proof derivations, the trace-based ordering measures that guarantee the soundness property.

Despite considerable advancements in the area of access control and authorization languages, current approaches to enforcing access control are all based on monolithic and complete specifications. This assumption is too restrictive when access control restrictions to be enforced come from the combination of different policy specifications, each possibly under the control of independent authorities, and where the specifics of some component policies may not even be known apriori. Turning individual specifications into a coherent policy to be fed into the access control system requires a nontrivial combination and translation process. This article addresses the problem of combining authorization specifications that may be independently stated, possibly in different languages and according to different policies. We propose an algebra of security policies together with its formal semantics and illustrate how to formulate complex policies in the algebra and reason about them. A translation of policy expressions into equivalent logic programs is illustrated, which provides the basis for the implementation of the algebra. The algebra's expressiveness is analyzed through a comparison with first-order logic.

In the area of inductive learning, generalization is the main operation, and the usual definition of induction I based on logical implication, Plotkin’s well-known technique for computing least general generalizations of clauses under {u1D719}-subsumption sometimes sometimes produces results which are too general with respect to implication. Muggleton has shown that this problem only occurs in one type of gencralization of recursive clauses, called an indirect root. Idestam-Almguist presented a technique, called recursive anti-unification, to compute indirect roots of clauses. However there exist cases for which recursive anti-unification does not work, cases where at least one of the clauses contains a structure called a cross connection. In this research, we develop a technique for computing indirect roots of Horn clauses. We firat introduce a relation equivalent to implication, called {u1D719}-proof, which is syntactically defined, using resolution and {u1D719}-subsumption. This leads us to an algorithm, the J-algorithm, for computing indirect roots of clauses. Because the J-algorithm makes no assumptions about the structure of its input clause, it can compute roots of clauses containing cross connections. We also prove that the output from the algorithm is a generalization under implication of the input.

Compliance policies often stipulate conditions on aggregated data. Current policy monitoring approaches are limited in the kind of aggregations that they can handle. We rectify this as follows. First, we extend metric first-order temporal logic with aggregation operators. This extension is inspired by the aggregation operators common in database query languages like SQL. Second, we provide a monitoring algorithm for this enriched policy specification language. Finally, we experimentally evaluate our monitor’s performance.KeywordsTemporal LogicPolicy LanguageFunction SymbolRelational AlgebraAggregation OperatorThese 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.

The paper proposes a novel solution to the problem of scope posed by natural language indefinites that captures both the difference in scopal freedom between indefinites and bona fide quantifiers and the syntactic sensitivity that the scope of indefinites does nevertheless exhibit. Following the main insight of choice functional approaches, we connect the special scopal properties of indefinites to the fact that their semantics can be stated in terms of choosing a suitable witness. This is in contrast to bona fide quantifiers, the semantics of which crucially involves relations between sets of entities. We provide empirical arguments that this insight should not be captured by adding choice/Skolem functions to classical first-order logic, but in a semantics that follows Independence-Friendly Logic, in which scopal relations involving existentials are part of the recursive definition of truth and satisfaction. These scopal relations are resolved automatically as part of the interpretation of existentials. Additional support for this approach is provided by dependent indefinites, a cross-linguistically common class of special indefinites that can be straightforwardly analyzed in our semantic framework.