Abstract The logic of bringing-it-about (BIAT) aims to capture a notion of agency in which actions are analysed in terms of their results: ‘An agent does something’ means that the agent brings it about that something takes place. Our starting point is the basic BIAT logic as introduced by Elgesem in the ‘90s: this logic contains only a modal operator to express BIAT statements by single agents. Several extensions have been proposed by Elgesem himself and others, notably with the capability operator, coalitions of agents and means-end BIAT statements (i.e. of the form ‘the agent does B by doing A’). We first propose a variant of the neighbourhood semantics, called bi-neighbourhood semantics, for the basic BIAT logic and the mentioned extensions, in which a world is equipped by a set of pairs or neighbourhoods. Differently from the semantics defined in the literature, this reformulation is well suited for countermodel construction. We then introduce modular hypersequent calculi for all logics considered in this work. Our calculi enjoy the fundamental property of cut admissibility, from which it follows their completeness with respect to the axiomatization. Moreover, our calculi provide at the same time a decision procedure, as well as the first practical countermodel extraction procedure: from a single failed proof it is possible to build directly a finite countermodel of the formula under verification in the bi-neighbourhood semantics. By this last result, we obtain constructive proofs of the semantic completeness of the calculi and consequently of the finite model property for all logics.

In the last two decades, there has been much progress on model checking of both probabilistic systems and higher-order programs. In spite of the emergence of higher-order probabilistic programming languages, not much has been done to combine those two approaches. In this paper, we initiate a study on the probabilistic higher-order model checking problem, by giving some first theoretical and experimental results. As a first step towards our goal, we introduce PHORS, a probabilistic extension of higher-order recursion schemes (HORS), as a model of probabilistic higher-order programs. The model of PHORS may alternatively be viewed as a higher-order extension of recursive Markov chains. We then investigate the probabilistic termination problem -- or, equivalently, the probabilistic reachability problem. We prove that almost sure termination of order-2 PHORS is undecidable. We also provide a fixpoint characterization of the termination probability of PHORS, and develop a sound (but possibly incomplete) procedure for approximately computing the termination probability. We have implemented the procedure for order-2 PHORSs, and confirmed that the procedure works well through preliminary experiments that are reported at the end of the article.

We introduce a system of monadic affine sized types, which substantially generalizes usual sized types and allows in this way to capture probabilistic higher-order programs that terminate almost surely. Going beyond plain, strong normalization without losing soundness turns out to be a hard task, which cannot be accomplished without a richer, quantitative notion of types, but also without imposing some affinity constraints. The proposed type system is powerful enough to type classic examples of probabilistically terminating programs such as random walks. The way typable programs are proved to be almost surely terminating is based on reducibility but requires a substantial adaptation of the technique.

Higher-order recursion schemes (HORS) have recently emerged as a promising foundation for higher-order program verification. We examine the impact of enriching HORS with linear types. To that end, we introduce two frameworks that blend non-linear and linear types: a variant of the λY -calculus and an extension of HORS, called linear HORS (LHORS). First we prove that the two formalisms are equivalent and there exist polynomial-time translations between them. Then, in order to support model-checking of (trees generated by) LHORS, we propose a refined version of alternating parity tree automata, called LNAPTA, whose behaviour depends on information about linearity. We show that the complexity of LNAPTA model-checking for LHORS depends on two type-theoretic parameters: linear order and linear depth. The former is in general smaller than the standard notion of order and ignores linear function spaces. In contrast, the latter measures the depth of linear clusters inside a type. Our main result states that LNAPTA model-checking of LHORS of linear order n is n-EXPTIME-complete, when linear depth is fixed. This generalizes and improves upon the classic result of Ong, which relies on the standard notion of order. To illustrate the significance of the result, we consider two applications: the MSO model-checking problem on variants of HORS with case distinction (RSFD and HORSC) on a finite domain and a call-by-value resource verification problem. In both cases, decidability can be established by translation into HORS, but the implied complexity bounds will be suboptimal due to increases in type order. In contrast, we show that the complexity bounds derived by translations into LHORS and appealing to our result are optimal in that they match the respective hardness results.

In this article, we develop a new and somewhat unexpected connection between higher-order model-checking and linear logic. Our starting point is the observation that once embedded in the relational semantics of linear logic, the Church encoding of any higher-order recursion scheme (HORS) comes together with a dual Church encoding of an alternating tree automata (ATA) of the same signature. Moreover, the interaction between the relational interpretations of the HORS and of the ATA identifies the set of accepting states of the tree automaton against the infinite tree generated by the recursion scheme. We show how to extend this result to alternating parity automata (APT) by introducing a parametric version of the exponential modality of linear logic, capturing the formal properties of colors (or priorities) in higher-order model-checking. We show in particular how to reunderstand in this way the type-theoretic approach to higher-order model-checking developed by Kobayashi and Ong. We briefly explain in the end of the paper how this analysis driven by linear logic results in a new and purely semantic proof of decidability of the formulas of the monadic second-order logic for higher-order recursion schemes.