BV-categories are a recent development that aims to give categorical semantics to proofs in the logic BV. However, due to the absence of a coherence theorem on one side and a well-defined notion of proof identity for BV on the other side, the precise relation between BV-categories and the logic BV is still not clear. To improve on this situation, we define in this paper a notion of proof identity for BV, based on the notion of atomic flows, which can be seen as a special form of string diagrams. Based on this notion of proof identity, we then strengthen the existing notion of BV-category and prove that it is sound with respect to the logic.

Subatomic logic is a recent innovation in structural proof theory where atoms are no longer the smallest entity in a logical formula, but are instead treated as binary connectives. As a consequence, we can give a subatomic proof system for propositional classical logic such that all derivations are strictly linear: no inference step deletes or adds information, even units. In this paper, we introduce a powerful new proof compression mechanism that we call guarded substitutions, a variant of explicit substitutions, which substitute only guarded occurrences of a free variable, instead of all free occurrences. This allows us to construct "superpositions" of derivations, which simultaneously represent multiple subderivations. We show that a subatomic proof system with guarded substitution can p-simulate a Frege system with substitution, and moreover, the cut-rule is not required to do so.

Abstract We present the logic IBV, which is an intuitionistic version of BV, in the sense that its restriction to the MLL connectives is exactly IMLL, the intuitionistic version of MLL. For this logic we give a deep inference proof system and show cut elimination. We also show that the logic obtained from IBV by dropping the associativity of the new non-commutative seq-connective is an intuitionistic variant of the recently introduced logic NML. For this logic, called INML, we give a cut-free sequent calculus.

In this paper we demonstrate decidability for the intuitionistic modal logic S4 first formulated by Fischer Servi. This solves a problem that has been open for almost thirty years since it had been posed in Simpson’s PhD thesis in 1994. We obtain this result by performing proof search in a labelled deductive system that, instead of using only one binary relation on the labels, employs two: one corresponding to the accessibility relation of modal logic and the other corresponding to the order relation of intuitionistic Kripke frames. Our search algorithm outputs either a proof or a finite counter-model, thus, additionally establishing the finite model property for intuitionistic S4, which has been another long-standing open problem in the area.

Pomset logic and BV are both logics that extend multiplicative linear logic (with Mix) with a third connective that is self-dual and non-commutative. Whereas pomset logic originates from the study of coherence spaces and proof nets, BV originates from the study of series-parallel orders, cographs, and proof systems. Both logics enjoy a cut-admissibility result, but for neither logic can this be done in the sequent calculus. Provability in pomset logic can be checked via a proof net correctness criterion and in BV via a deep inference proof system. It has long been conjectured that these two logics are the same. In this paper we show that this conjecture is false. We also investigate the complexity of the two logics, exhibiting a huge gap between the two. Whereas provability in BV is NP-complete, provability in pomset logic is $\Sigma_2^p$-complete. We also make some observations with respect to possible sequent systems for the two logics.

BV and pomset logic are two logics that both conservatively extend unit-free multiplicative linear logic by a third binary connective, which (i) is non-commutative, (ii) is self-dual, and (iii) lies between the "par" and the "tensor". It was conjectured early on (more than 20 years ago), that these two logics, that share the same language, that both admit cut elimination, and whose connectives have essentially the same properties, are in fact the same. In this paper we show that this is not the case. We present a formula that is provable in pomset logic but not in BV.

Logical time is a partial order over events in distributed systems, constraining which events precede others. Special interest has been given to series-parallel orders since they correspond to formulas constructed via the two operations for "series" and "parallel" composition. For this reason, series-parallel orders have received attention from proof theory, leading to pomset logic, the logic BV, and their extensions. However, logical time does not always form a series-parallel order; indeed, ubiquitous structures in distributed systems are beyond current proof theoretic methods. In this paper, we explore how this restriction can be lifted. We design new logics that work directly on graphs instead of formulas, we develop their proof theory, and we show that our logics are conservative extensions of the logic BV.

International audience

In this paper we present a proof system that operates on graphs instead of formulas. Starting from the well-known relationship between formulas and cographs, we drop the cograph-conditions and look at arbitrary undirected) graphs. This means that we lose the tree structure of the formulas corresponding to the cographs, and we can no longer use standard proof theoretical methods that depend on that tree structure. In order to overcome this difficulty, we use a modular decomposition of graphs and some techniques from deep inference where inference rules do not rely on the main connective of a formula. For our proof system we show the admissibility of cut and a generalisation of the splitting property. Finally, we show that our system is a conservative extension of multiplicative linear logic with mix, and we argue that our graphs form a notion of generalised connective.

We uncover a close relationship between combinatorial and syntactic proofs for first-order logic (without equality). Whereas syntactic proofs are formalized in a deductive proof system based on inference rules, a combinatorial proof is a syntax-free presentation of a proof that is independent from any set of inference rules. We show that the two proof representations are related via a deep inference decomposition theorem that establishes a new kind of normal form for syntactic proofs. This yields (a) a simple proof of soundness and completeness for first-order combinatorial proofs, and (b) a full completeness theorem: every combinatorial proof is the image of a syntactic proof.

Abstract Labelled proof theory has been famously successful for modal logics by mimicking their relational semantics within deductive systems. Simpson in particular designed a framework to study a variety of intuitionistic modal logics integrating a binary relation symbol in the syntax. In this paper, we present a labelled sequent system for intuitionistic modal logics such that there is not only one but two relation symbols appearing in sequents: one for the accessibility relation associated with the Kripke semantics for normal modal logics and one for the pre-order relation associated with the Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic. This puts our system in close correspondence with the standard birelational Kripke semantics for intuitionistic modal logics. As a consequence, it can be extended with arbitrary intuitionistic Scott–Lemmon axioms. We show soundness and completeness, together with an internal cut elimination proof, encompassing a wider array of intuitionistic modal logics than any existing labelled system.

In this paper we present a proof system that operates on graphs instead of formulas. We begin our quest with the well-known correspondence between formulas and cographs, which are undirected graphs that do not have P4 (the four-vertex path) as vertex-induced subgraph; and then we drop that condition and look at arbitrary (undirected) graphs. The consequence is that we lose the tree structure of the formulas corresponding to the cographs. Therefore we cannot use standard proof theoretical methods that depend on that tree structure. In order to overcome this difficulty, we use a modular decomposition of graphs and some techniques from deep inference where inference rules do not rely on the main connective of a formula. For our proof system we show the admissibility of cut and a generalization of the splitting property. Finally, we show that our system is a conservative extension of multiplicative linear logic (MLL) with mix, meaning that if a graph is a cograph and provable in our system, then it is also provable in MLL+mix.

We present Intuitionistic Combinatorial Proofs (ICPs), a concrete geometric semantics of intuitionistic logic based on the principles of the second author's classical Combinatorial Proofs. An ICP naturally factorizes into a linear fragment, a graphical abstraction of an IMLL proof net (an arena net), and a parallel contraction-weakening fragment (a skew.fibration). ICPs relate to game semantics, and can be seen as a strategy in a Hyland-Ong arena, generalized from a tree-like to a dag-like strategy. Our first main result, Polynomial Full Completeness, is that ICPs as a semantics are complexity-aware: the translations to and from sequent calculus are size-preserving (up to a polynomial). By contrast, lambda-calculus and game semantics incur an exponential blowup. Our second main result, Local Canonicity, is that ICPs abstract fully and faithfully over the non-duplicating permutations of the sequent calculus, analogously to the first and second authors' recent result for MALL.

In this paper, we introduce the notion of expansion tree for linear logic. As in Miller's original work, we have a shallow reading of an expansion tree that corresponds to the conclusion of the proof, and a deep reading which is a formula that can be proved by propositional rules. We focus our attention to MLL2, and we also present a deep inference system for that logic. This allows us to give a syntactic proof to a version of Herbrand's theorem.

In this paper, it is proved that Girard's proof nets for multiplicative linear logic characterize free semi-star-autonomous categories.

Recently it has been observed that the set of all sound linear inference rules in propositional logic is already coNP-complete, i.e. that every Boolean tautology can be written as a (left- and right-) linear rewrite rule. This raises the question of whether there is a rewriting system on linear terms of propositional logic that is sound and complete for the set of all such rewrite rules. We show in this paper that, as long as reduction steps are polynomial-time decidable, such a rewriting system does not exist unless coNP=NP. We draw tools and concepts from term rewriting, Boolean function theory and graph theory in order to access the required intermediate results. At the same time we make several connections between these areas that, to our knowledge, have not yet been presented and constitute a rich theoretical framework for reasoning about linear TRSs for propositional logic.

There are two contributions in this article. First, we give a direct proof of the known fact that Frege systems with substitution can be p-simulated by the calculus of structures (CoS) extended with the substitution rule. This is done without referring to the p-equivalence of extended Frege systems and Frege systems with substitution. Second, we then show that the cut-free CoS with substitution is p-equivalent to the cut-free CoS with extension.

The goal of this paper is to provide the required foundations for establishing free theorems -- statements about program equivalence, guaranteed by polymorphic types -- for the functional-logic programming language Curry. For the sake of presentation we restrict ourselves to a language fragment that we call CuMin, and that has the characteristic features of Curry (both functional and logic). We present a new denotational semantics based on partially ordered sets without limits. We then introduce an intermediate language called SaLT that is essentially a lambda-calculus extended with an abstract set type, and again give a denotational semantics. We show that the standard (logical relations) techniques can be applied to obtain a general parametricity theorem for SaLT and derive free theorems from it. Via a translation from CuMin to SaLT that fits the respective semantics, we then derive free theorems for CuMin.

This article shows how derivations in the deep inference system SKS for classical propositional logic can be translated into proof nets. Since an SKS derivation contains more information about a proof than the corresponding proof net, we observe a loss of information which can be understood as ‘eliminating bureaucracy’. Technically, this is achieved by cut reduction on proof nets. As an intermediate step between the two extremes, SKS derivations and proof nets, we will see proof graphs representing derivations in ‘Formalism A’.

System NEL is the mixed commutative/non-commutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic's exponentials, or, equivalently, it is MELL augmented with the non-commutative self-dual connective seq. NEL is presented in deep inference, because no Gentzen formalism can express it in such a way that the cut rule is admissible. Other recent work shows that system NEL is Turing-complete, and is able to express process algebra sequential composition directly and model causal quantum evolution faithfully. In this paper, we show cut elimination for NEL , based on a technique that we call splitting . The splitting theorem shows how and to what extent we can recover a sequent-like structure in NEL proofs. When combined with a ‘decomposition’ theorem, proved in the previous paper of this series, splitting yields a cut-elimination procedure for NEL .

We study a system, called NEL, which is the mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic's exponentials. Equivalently, NEL is MELL augmented with the noncommutative self-dual connective seq. In this article, we show a basic compositionality property of NEL, which we call decomposition . This result leads to a cut-elimination theorem, which is proved in the next article of this series. To control the induction measure for the theorem, we rely on a novel technique that extracts from NEL proofs the structure of exponentials, into what we call !-?-Flow-Graphs.

This work belongs to a wider effort aimed at eliminating syntactic bureaucracy from proof systems. In this paper, we present a novel cut elimination procedure for classical propositional logic. It is based on the recently introduced `atomic flows': they are purely graphical devices that abstract away from much of the typical bureaucracy of proofs. We make crucial use of the `path breaker', an atomic flow construction that avoids some nasty termination problems, and that can be used in any proof system with sufficient symmetry. This paper contains an original 2-dimensional-diagram exposition of atomic flows, which helps us to connect atomic flows with other known formalisms.

In the first part of this paper we present a theory of proof nets for full multiplicative linear logic, including the two units. It naturally extends the well-known theory of unit-free multiplicative proof nets. A linking is no longer a set of axiom links but a tree in which the axiom links are subtrees. These trees will be identified according to an equivalence relation based on a simple form of graph rewriting. We show the standard results of sequentialization and strong normalization of cut elimination. In the second part of the paper we show that the identifications enforced on proofs are such that the class of two-conclusion proof nets defines the free *-autonomous category.

By Boolean category we mean something which is to a Boolean algebra what a category is to a poset. We propose an axiomatic system for Boolean categories, which is different in several respects from the ones proposed recently In particular everything is done from the start in a *-autonomous category and not in a weakly distributive one, which simplifies issues like the Mix rule. An important axiom, which is introduced later, is a "graphical" condition, which is closely related to denotational semantics and the Geometry of Interaction. Then we show that a previously constructed category of proof nets is the free "graphical" Boolean category in our sense. This validates our categorical axiomatization with respect to a real-life example. Another important aspect of this work is that we do not assume a-priori the existence of units in the *-autonomous categories we use. This has some retroactive interest for the semantics of linear logic, and is motivated by the properties of our example with respect to units.