Abstract Attestation logics have been used for specifying systems with policies involving different principals. Cyberlogic is an attestation logic used for the specification of Evidential Transactions (ETs). In such transactions, evidence has to be provided supporting its validity with respect to given policies. For example, visa applicants may be required to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to visit a foreign country. Such evidence can be expressed as a Cyberlogic proof, possibly combined with non-logical data (e.g., a digitally signed document). A key issue is how to construct and communicate such evidence/proofs. It turns out that attestation modalities are challenging to use established proof-theoretic methods such as focusing. Our first contribution is the refinement of Cyberlogic proof theory with knowledge operators which can be used to represent knowledge bases local to one or more principals. Our second contribution is the identification of an executable fragment of Cyberlogic, called Cyberlogic programs, enabling the specification of ETs. Our third contribution is a sound and complete proof system for Cyberlogic programs enabling proof search similar to search in logic programming. Our final contribution is a proof certificate format for Cyberlogic programs inspired by Foundational Proof Certificates as a means to communicate evidence and check its validity.

In this paper we present an algorithmic method of lemma introduction. Given a proof in predicate logic with equality the algorithm is capable of introducing several universal lemmas. The method is based on an inversion of Gentzen’s cut-elimination method for sequent calculus. The first step consists of the computation of a compact representation (a so-called decomposition) of Herbrand instances in a cut-free proof. Given a decomposition the problem of computing the corresponding lemmas is reduced to the solution of a second-order unification problem (the solution conditions). It is shown that that there is always a solution of the solution conditions, the canonical solution. This solution yields a sequence of lemmas and, finally, a proof based on these lemmas. Various techniques are developed to simplify the canonical solution resulting in a reduction of proof complexity. Moreover, the paper contains a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the implemented method and gives an application to a mathematical proof.

Resolution and sequent calculus are two well-known formal proof systems. Their differences make them suitable for distinct tasks. Resolution and its variants are very efficient for automated reasoning and are in fact the theoretical basis of many theorem provers. However, being intentionally machine oriented, the resolution calculus is not as natural for human beings and the input problem needs to be pre-processed to clause normal form. Sequent calculus, on the other hand, is a modular formalism that is useful for analysing meta-properties of various logics and is, therefore, popular among proof theorists. The input problem does not need to be pre-processed, and proofs are more detailed. However, proofs also tend to be larger and more verbose. When the worlds of proof theory and automated theorem proving meet, translations between resolution and sequent calculus are often necessary. In this paper, we compare three translation methods and analyse their complexity.

It has been shown that linear logic can be successfully used as a framework for both specifying proof systems for a number of logics, as well as proving fundamental properties about the specified systems. This article shows how to extend the framework with subexponentials in order to declaratively encode a wider range of proof systems, including a number of non-trivial proof systems such as multi-conclusion intuitionistic logic, classical modal logic S4, intuitionistic Lax logic, and Negri's labelled proof systems for different modal logics. Moreover, we propose methods for checking whether an encoded proof system has important properties, such as if it admits cut-elimination, the completeness of atomic identity rules, and the invertibility of its inference rules. Finally, we present a tool implementing some of these specification/verification methods.

We show an effective cut-free variant of Glivenko's theorem extended to formulas with weak quantifiers: "There is an elementary function f such that if φ is a cut-free LK proof of ⊢ A with symbol complexity ≤ c, then there exists a cut-free LJ proof of ⊢ ⊯ ⊯ A with symbol complexity ≤ f(c)". This follows from the more general result: "There is an elementary function f such that if φ is a cut-free LK proof of A ⊢ with symbol complexity ≤ c, then there exists a cut-free LJ proof of A ⊢ with symbol complexity ≤ f(c)". The result is proved using a suitable variant of cut-elimination by resolution (CERES) and subsumption.