In this work, we prove the undecidability (and Σ⁰₁-completeness) of several theories of semirings with fixed points. The generality of our results stems from recursion theoretic methods, namely the technique of effective inseparability. Our result applies to many theories proposed in the literature, including Conway μ-semirings, Park μ-semirings, and Chomsky algebras.

We introduce Pudlak-Buss style Prover-Adversary games to characterise proof systems reasoning over deterministic branching programs (BPs) and non-deterministic branching programs (NBPs). Our starting points are the proof systems eLDT and eLNDT, for BPs and NBPs respectively, previously introduced by Buss, Das and Knop. We prove polynomial equivalences between these proof systems and the corresponding games we introduce. This crucially requires access to a form of negation of branching programs which, for NBPs, requires us to formalise a non-uniform version of the Immerman-Szelepcsenyi theorem that coNL = NL. Thanks to the techniques developed, we further obtain a proof complexity theoretic version of Immerman-Szelepcsenyi, showing that eLNDT is polynomially equivalent to systems over boundedly alternating branching programs.

Circular (or cyclic ) proofs have received increasing attention in recent years and have been proposed as an alternative setting for studying (co)inductive reasoning. In particular, now several type systems based on circular reasoning have been proposed. However, little is known about the complexity theoretic aspects of circular proofs, which exhibit sophisticated loop structures atypical of more common ‘recursion schemes’. This article attempts to bridge the gap between circular proofs and implicit computational complexity (ICC). Namely, we introduce a circular proof system based on Bellantoni and Cook’s famous safe-normal function algebra, and we identify proof theoretical constraints, inspired by ICC, to characterise the polynomial-time and elementary computable functions. Along the way, we introduce new recursion theoretic implicit characterisations of these classes that may be of interest in their own right.

Alternating parity automata (APAs) provide a robust formalism for modelling infinite behaviours and play a central role in formal verification. Despite their widespread use, the algebraic theory underlying APAs has remained largely unexplored. In recent work [10], a notation for non-deterministic finite automata (NFAs) was introduced, along with a sound and complete axiomatisation of their equational theory via right-linear algebras. In this paper, we extend that line of work to the setting of infinite words. In particular, we present a dualised syntax, yielding a notation for APAs based on right-linear lattice expressions, and provide a natural axiomatisation of their equational theory with respect to the standard language model of ω-regular languages. The design of this axiomatisation is guided by the theory of fixed point logics; in fact, the completeness factors cleanly through the completeness of the linear-time µ-calculus.

Abstract $$\omega $$ ω -regular languages are a natural extension of the regular languages to the setting of infinite words. Likewise, they are recognised by a host of automata models, one of the most important being Alternating Parity Automata (APAs), a generalisation of Büchi automata that symmetrises both the transitions (with universal as well as existential branching) and the acceptance condition (by a parity condition). In this work, we develop a cyclic proof system manipulating APAs, represented by an algebraic notation of Right Linear Lattice expressions. This syntax dualises that of previously introduced Right Linear Algebras, which comprised a notation for non-deterministic finite automata. Our main result is the soundness and completeness of our system for $$\omega $$ ω -language inclusion, heavily exploiting game-theoretic techniques from the theory of $$\omega $$ ω -regular languages.

We study the computational expressivity of proof systems with fixed point operators, within the 'proofs-as-programs' paradigm. We start with a calculus muLJ (due to Clairambault) that extends intuitionistic logic by least and greatest positive fixed points. Based in the sequent calculus, muLJ admits a standard extension to a 'circular' calculus CmuLJ. Our main result is that, perhaps surprisingly, both muLJ and CmuLJ represent the same first-order functions: those provably total in $Π^1_2$-$\mathsf{CA}_0$, a subsystem of second-order arithmetic beyond the 'big five' of reverse mathematics and one of the strongest theories for which we have an ordinal analysis (due to Rathjen). This solves various questions in the literature on the computational strength of (circular) proof systems with fixed points. For the lower bound we give a realisability interpretation from an extension of Peano Arithmetic by fixed points that has been shown to be arithmetically equivalent to $Π^1_2$-$\mathsf{CA}_0$ (due to Möllerfeld). For the upper bound we construct a novel computability model in order to give a totality argument for circular proofs with fixed points. In fact we formalise this argument itself within $Π^1_2$-$\mathsf{CA}_0$ in order to obtain the tight bounds we are after. Along the way we develop some novel reverse mathematics for the Knaster-Tarski fixed point theorem.

We investigate the proof complexity of systems based on positive branching programs, i.e. non-deterministic branching programs (NBPs) where, for any 0-transition between two nodes, there is also a 1-transition. Positive NBPs compute monotone Boolean functions, just like negation-free circuits or formulas, but constitute a positive version of (non-uniform) NL, rather than P or NC1, respectively. The proof complexity of NBPs was investigated in previous work by Buss, Das and Knop, using extension variables to represent the dag-structure, over a language of (non-deterministic) decision trees, yielding the system eLNDT. Our system eLNDT+ is obtained by restricting their systems to a positive syntax, similarly to how the 'monotone sequent calculus' MLK is obtained from the usual sequent calculus LK by restricting to negation-free formulas. Our main result is that eLNDT+ polynomially simulates eLNDT over positive sequents. Our proof method is inspired by a similar result for MLK by Atserias, Galesi and Pudl\'ak, that was recently improved to a bona fide polynomial simulation via works of Je\v{r}\'abek and Buss, Kabanets, Kolokolova and Kouck\'y. Along the way we formalise several properties of counting functions within eLNDT+ by polynomial-size proofs and, as a case study, give explicit polynomial-size poofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle.

We derive an intuitionistic version of Gödel-Löb modal logic (GL) in the style of Simpson, via proof theoretic techniques. We recover a labelled system, ℓIGL, by restricting a non-wellfounded labelled system for GL to have only one formula on the right. The latter is obtained using techniques from cyclic proof theory, sidestepping the barrier that GL’s usual frame condition (converse well-foundedness) is not first-order definable. While existing intuitionistic versions of GL are typically defined over only the box (and not the diamond), our presentation includes both modalities. Our main result is that ℓIGL coincides with a corresponding semantic condition in birelational semantics: the composition of the modal relation and the intuitionistic relation is conversely well-founded. We call the resulting logic IGL. While the soundness direction is proved using standard ideas, the completeness direction is more complex and necessitates a detour through several intermediate characterisations of IGL.

Abstract We investigate the proof theory of regular expressions with fixed points, construed as a notation for ( $$\omega $$ ω -)context-free grammars. Starting with a hypersequential system for regular expressions due to Das and Pous [15], we define its extension by least fixed points and prove the soundness and completeness of its non-wellfounded proofs for the standard language model. From here we apply proof-theoretic techniques to recover an infinitary axiomatisation of the resulting equational theory, complete for inclusions of context-free languages. Finally, we extend our syntax by greatest fixed points, now computing $$\omega $$ ω -context-free languages. We show the soundness and completeness of the corresponding system using a mixture of proof-theoretic and game-theoretic techniques.

Right-linear (or left-linear) grammars are a well-known class of context-free grammars computing just the regular languages. They may naturally be written as expressions with least fixed points but with products restricted to letters as left arguments, giving an alternative to the syntax of regular expressions. In this work, we investigate the resulting logical theory of this syntax. Namely, we propose a theory of right-linear algebras (RLA) over this syntax and a cyclic proof system CRLA for reasoning about them.

Cyclic and non-wellfounded proofs are now increasingly employed to establish metalogical results in a variety of settings, in particular for type systems with forms of (co)induction. Under the Curry-Howard correspondence, a cyclic proof can be seen as a typing derivation 'with loops', closer to low-level machine models, and so comprise a highly expressive computational model that nonetheless enjoys excellent metalogical properties. In recent work, we showed how the cyclic proof setting can be further employed to model computational complexity, yielding characterisations of the polynomial time and elementary computable functions. These characterisations are 'implicit', inspired by Bellantoni and Cook's famous algebra of safe recursion, but exhibit greater expressivity thanks to the looping capacity of cyclic proofs. In this work we investigate the capacity for non-wellfounded proofs, where finite presentability is relaxed, to model non-uniformity in complexity theory. In particular, we present a characterisation of the class $\mathsf{FP/poly}$ of functions computed by polynomial-size circuits. While relating non-wellfoundedness to non-uniformity is a natural idea, the precise amount of irregularity, informally speaking, required to capture $\mathsf{FP/poly}$ is given by proof-level conditions novel to cyclic proof theory. Along the way, we formalise some (presumably) folklore techniques for characterising non-uniform classes in relativised function algebras with appropriate oracles.

We investigate the cyclic proof theory of extensions of Peano Arithmetic by (finitely iterated) inductive definitions. Such theories are essential to proof theoretic analyses of certain "impredicative" theories; moreover, our cyclic systems naturally subsume Simpson’s Cyclic Arithmetic. Our main result is that cyclic and inductive systems for arithmetical inductive definitions are equally powerful. We conduct a metamathematical argument, formalising the soundness of cyclic proofs within second-order arithmetic by a form of induction on closure ordinals, thence appealing to conservativity results. This approach is inspired by those of Simpson and Das for Cyclic Arithmetic, however we must further address a difficulty: the closure ordinals of our inductive definitions (around Church-Kleene) far exceed the proof theoretic ordinal of the appropriate metatheory (around Bachmann-Howard), so explicit induction on their notations is not possible. For this reason, we rather rely on formalisation of the theory of (recursive) ordinals within second-order arithmetic.

Extensions of Girard’s linear logic by least and greatest fixed point operators (μMALL) have been an active field of research for almost two decades. Various proof systems are known viz. finitary and non-wellfounded, based on explicit and implicit (co)induction respectively. In this paper, we compare the relative expressivity, at the level of provability, of two complementary infinitary proof systems: finitely branching non-wellfounded proofs (μMALL^∞) vs. infinitely branching well-founded proofs (μMALL_{ω,∞}). Our main result is that μMALL^∞ is strictly contained in μMALL_{ω,∞}. For inclusion, we devise a novel technique involving infinitary rewriting of non-wellfounded proofs that yields a wellfounded proof in the limit. For strictness of the inclusion, we improve previously known lower bounds on μMALL^∞ provability from Π⁰₁-hard to Σ¹₁-hard, by encoding a sort of Büchi condition for Minsky machines.

We study the computational expressivity of proof systems with fixed point operators, within the ‘proofs-as-programs’ paradigm. We start with a calculus μLJ (due to Clairambault) that extends intuitionistic logic by least and greatest positive fixed points. Based in the sequent calculus, μLJ admits a standard extension to a ‘circular’ calculus CμLJ.Our main result is that, perhaps surprisingly, both μLJ and CμLJ represent the same first-order functions: those provably total in $\Pi _2^1 - {\text{C}}{{\text{A}}_0}$, a subsystem of second-order arithmetic beyond the ‘big five’ of reverse mathematics and one of the strongest theories for which we have an ordinal analysis (due to Rathjen). This solves various questions in the literature on the computational strength of (circular) proof systems with fixed points.For the lower bound we give a realisability interpretation from an extension of Peano Arithmetic by fixed points that has been shown to be arithmetically equivalent to $\Pi _2^1 - {\text{C}}{{\text{A}}_0}$ (due to Möllerfeld). For the upper bound we construct a novel computability model in order to give a totality argument for circular proofs with fixed points. In fact we formalise this argument itself within $\Pi _2^1 - {\text{C}}{{\text{A}}_0}$ in order to obtain the tight bounds we are after. Along the way we develop some novel reverse mathematics for the Knaster-Tarski fixed point theorem.

Abstract A variety of intuitionistic versions of modal logic $$ K $$ have been proposed in the literature. An apparent misconception is that all these logics coincide on their $$\Box $$ -only (or $$\Diamond $$ -free) fragment, suggesting some robustness of ‘ $$\Box $$ -only intuitionistic modal logic’. However in this work we show that this is not true, by consideration of negative translations from classical modal logic: Fischer Servi’s $$ IK $$ proves strictly more $$\Diamond $$ -free theorems than Fitch’s $$ CK $$ , and indeed $$i K $$ , the minimal $$\Box $$ -normal intuitionistic modal logic. On the other hand we show that the smallest extension of $$i K $$ by a normal $$\Diamond $$ is in fact conservative over $$i K $$ (over $$\Diamond $$ -free formulas). To this end, we develop a novel proof calculus based on nested sequents for intuitionistic propositional logic due to Fitting. Along the way we establish a number of new metalogical results.

Abstract We propose a cut-free cyclic system for transitive closure logic (TCL) based on a form of hypersequents , suitable for automated reasoning via proof search. We show that previously proposed sequent systems are cut-free incomplete for basic validities from Kleene Algebra (KA) and propositional dynamic logic ( $$\text {PDL}$$ PDL ), over standard translations. On the other hand, our system faithfully simulates known cyclic systems for KA and $$\text {PDL}$$ PDL , thereby inheriting their completeness results. A peculiarity of our system is its richer correctness criterion, exhibiting ‘alternating traces’ and necessitating a more intricate soundness argument than for traditional cyclic proofs.

A linear inference is a valid inequality of Boolean algebra in which each variable occurs at most once on each side. In this work we leverage recently developed graphical representations of linear formulae to build an implementation that is capable of more efficiently searching for switch-medial-independent inferences. We use it to find four `minimal' 8-variable independent inferences and also prove that no smaller ones exist; in contrast, a previous approach based directly on formulae reached computational limits already at 7 variables. Two of these new inferences derive some previously found independent linear inferences. The other two (which are dual) exhibit structure seemingly beyond the scope of previous approaches we are aware of; in particular, their existence contradicts a conjecture of Das and Strassburger. We were also able to identify 10 minimal 9-variable linear inferences independent of all the aforementioned inferences, comprising 5 dual pairs, and present applications of our implementation to recent `graph logics'.

Linear logic is an important logic for modelling resources and decomposing computational interpretations of proofs. Decision problems for fragments of linear logic exhibiting "infinitary" behaviour (such as exponentials) are notoriously complicated. In this work, we address the decision problems for variations of linear logic with fixed points (μMALL), in particular, recent systems based on "circular" and "non-wellfounded" reasoning. In this paper, we show that μMALL is undecidable. More explicitly, we show that the general non-wellfounded system is Π⁰₁-hard via a reduction to the non-halting of Minsky machines, and thus is strictly stronger than its circular counterpart (which is in Σ⁰₁). Moreover, we show that the restriction of these systems to theorems with only the least fixed points is already Σ⁰₁-complete via a reduction to the reachability problem of alternating vector addition systems with states. This implies that both the circular system and the finitary system (with explicit (co)induction) are Σ⁰₁-complete.

Circular (or cyclic) proofs have received increasing attention in recent years, and have been proposed as an alternative setting for studying (co)inductive reasoning. In particular, now several type systems based on circular reasoning have been proposed. However, little is known about the complexity theoretic aspects of circular proofs, which exhibit sophisticated loop structures atypical of more common ‘recursion schemes’.

Circular and non-wellfounded proofs have become an increasingly popular tool for metalogical treatments of systems with forms of induction and/or recursion. In this work we investigate the expressivity of a variant CT of Gödel's system T where programs are circularly typed, rather than including an explicit recursion combinator. In particular, we examine the abstraction complexity (i.e. type level) of C, and show that the Gödel primitive recursive functionals may be typed more succinctly with circular derivations, using types precisely one level lower than in T. In fact we give a logical correspondence between the two settings, interpreting the quantifier-free type 1 theory of level n+1 T into that of level n C and vice-versa. We also obtain some further results and perspectives on circular 'derivations', namely strong normalisation and confluence, models based on hereditary computable functionals, continuity at type 2, and a translation to terms of $\T$ computing the same functional, at all types.

A linear inference is a valid inequality of Boolean algebra in which each variable occurs at most once on each side. Equivalently, it is a linear rewrite rule on Boolean terms that constitutes a valid implication. Linear inferences have played a significant role in structural proof theory, in particular in models of substructural logics and in normalisation arguments for deep inference proof systems. Systems of linear logic and, later, deep inference are founded upon two particular linear inferences, switch : X (y z) → (x y) V z, and medial : (w x) V (y z) → (w V y) (x V z). It is well-known that these two are not enough to derive all linear inferences (even modulo all valid linear equations), but beyond this little more is known about the structure of linear inferences in general. In particular despite recurring attention in the literature, the smallest linear inference not derivable under switch and medial ("switch-medial-independent") was not previously known. In this work we leverage recently developed graphical representations of linear formulae to build an implementation that is capable of more efficiently searching for switch-medial-independent inferences. We use it to find two "minimal" 8-variable independent inferences and also prove that no smaller ones exist; in contrast, a previous approach based directly on formulae reached computational limits already at 7 variables. One of these new inferences derives some previously found independent linear inferences. The other exhibits structure seemingly beyond the scope of previous approaches we are aware of; in particular, its existence contradicts a conjecture of Das and Strassburger.

This paper studies propositional proof systems in which lines are sequents of decision trees or branching programs - deterministic and nondeterministic. The systems LDT and LNDT are propositional proof systems in which lines represent deterministic or non-deterministic decision trees. Branching programs are modeled as decision dags. Adding extension to LDT and LNDT gives systems eLDT and eLNDT in which lines represent deterministic and non-deterministic branching programs, respectively. Deterministic and non-deterministic branching programs correspond to log-space (L) and nondeterministic log-space (NL). Thus the systems eLDT and eLNDT are propositional proof systems that reason with (nonuniform) L and NL properties. The main results of the paper are simulation and non-simulation results for tree-like and dag-like proofs in the systems LDT, LNDT, eLDT, and eLNDT. These systems are also compared with Frege systems, constantdepth Frege systems and extended Frege systems

Abstract In this work we investigate how to extract alternating time bounds from ‘focussed’ proof systems. Our main result is the obtention of fragments of $$\mathsf {MALL} {\mathsf {w} }$$ MALL w ( $$\mathsf {MALL} $$ MALL with weakening) complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy. In one direction we encode QBF satisfiability and in the other we encode focussed proof search, and we show that the composition of the two encodings preserves quantifier alternation, yielding the required result. By carefully composing with well-known embeddings of $$\mathsf {MALL} {\mathsf {w} }$$ MALL w into $$\mathsf {MALL} $$ MALL , we obtain a similar delineation of $$\mathsf {MALL} $$ MALL formulas, again carving out fragments complete for each level of the polynomial hierarchy. This refines the well-known results that both $$\mathsf {MALL} {\mathsf {w} }$$ MALL w and $$\mathsf {MALL} $$ MALL are $$\mathbf {PSPACE}$$ PSPACE -complete. A key insight is that we have to refine the usual presentation of focussing to account for deterministic computations in proof search, which correspond to invertible rules that do not branch. This is so that we may more faithfully associate phases of focussed proof search to their alternating time complexity. This presentation seems to uncover further dualities, at the level of proof search, than usual presentations, so could be of proof theoretic interest in its own right.

We study the logical complexity of proofs in cyclic arithmetic ($\mathsf{CA}$), as introduced in Simpson '17, in terms of quantifier alternations of formulae occurring. Writing $C\Sigma_n$ for (the logical consequences of) cyclic proofs containing only $\Sigma_n$ formulae, our main result is that $I\Sigma_{n+1}$ and $C\Sigma_n$ prove the same $\Pi_{n+1}$ theorems, for all $n\geq 0$. Furthermore, due to the 'uniformity' of our method, we also show that $\mathsf{CA}$ and Peano Arithmetic ($\mathsf{PA}$) proofs of the same theorem differ only exponentially in size. The inclusion $I\Sigma_{n+1} \subseteq C\Sigma_n$ is obtained by proof theoretic techniques, relying on normal forms and structural manipulations of $\mathsf{PA}$ proofs. It improves upon the natural result that $I\Sigma_n$ is contained in $C\Sigma_n$. The converse inclusion, $C\Sigma_n \subseteq I\Sigma_{n+1}$, is obtained by calibrating the approach of Simpson '17 with recent results on the reverse mathematics of B\"uchi's theorem in Ko{\l}odziejczyk, Michalewski, Pradic & Skrzypczak '16 (KMPS'16), and specialising to the case of cyclic proofs. These results improve upon the bounds on proof complexity and logical complexity implicit in Simpson '17 and also an alternative approach due to Berardi & Tatsuta '17. The uniformity of our method also allows us to recover a metamathematical account of fragments of $\mathsf{CA}$; in particular we show that, for $n\geq 0$, the consistency of $C\Sigma_n$ is provable in $I\Sigma_{n+2}$ but not $I\Sigma_{n+1}$. As a result, we show that certain versions of McNaughton's theorem (the determinisation of $\omega$-word automata) are not provable in $\mathsf{RCA}_0$, partially resolving an open problem from KMPS '16.

We extend work of Lautemann, Schwentick and Stewart [Clemens Lautemann et al., 1996] on characterisations of the "positive" polynomial-time predicates (posP, also called mP by Grigni and Sipser [Grigni and Sipser, 1992]) to function classes. Our main result is the obtention of a function algebra for the positive polynomial-time functions (posFP) by imposing a simple uniformity constraint on the bounded recursion operator in Cobham's characterisation of FP. We show that a similar constraint on a function algebra based on safe recursion, in the style of Bellantoni and Cook [Stephen Bellantoni and Stephen A. Cook, 1992], yields an "implicit" characterisation of posFP, mentioning neither explicit bounds nor explicit monotonicity constraints.

We prove cut-elimination for a sequent-style proof system which is sound and complete for the equational theory of Kleene algebra, and where proofs are (potentially) non-wellfounded infinite trees. We extend these results to systems with meets and residuals, capturing `star-continuous' action lattices in a similar way. We recover the equational theory of all action lattices by restricting to regular proofs (with cut) - those proofs that are unfoldings of finite graphs.

We give a new proof that the axioms of left-handed Kleene algebra are complete with respect to language containments. This proof is significantly simpler than both the proof of Boffa (which relies on Krob’s completeness result), and the more recent proof of Kozen and Silva. Our proof builds on a recent non-wellfounded sequent calculus which makes it possible to explicitly compute the invariants required for left-handed Kleene algebra.

We prove a general form of 'free-cut elimination' for first-order theories in linear logic, yielding normal forms of proofs where cuts are anchored to nonlogical steps. To demonstrate the usefulness of this result, we consider a version of arithmetic in linear logic, based on a previous axiomatisation by Bellantoni and Hofmann. We prove a witnessing theorem for a fragment of this arithmetic via the `witness function method', showing that the provably convergent functions are precisely the polynomial-time functions. The programs extracted are implemented in the framework of 'safe' recursive functions, due to Bellantoni and Cook, where the ! modality of linear logic corresponds to normal inputs of a safe recursive program.

We study versions of second-order bounded arithmetic where induction and comprehension formulae are positive or where the underlying logic is intuitionistic, examining their relationships to monotone and deep inference proof systems for propositional logic.

We show that an adaptation of Peano's axioms for second-order arithmetic to the language of MSO completely axiomatizes the theory over infinite trees. This continues a line of work begun by Büchi and Siefkes with axiomatizations of MSO over various classes of linear orders. Our proof formalizes, in the axiomatic theory, a translation of MSO formulas to alternating parity tree automata. The main ingredient is the formalized proof of positional determinacy for the corresponding parity games which, as usual, allows us to complement automata in order to deal with negation of MSO formulas. The Comprehension scheme of monadic second-order logic is used to obtain uniform winning strategies, whereas most usual proofs of positional determinacy rely on forms of the Axiom of Choice or transfinite induction.

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.

Linear inferences are sound implications of propositional logic where each variable appears exactly once in the premiss and conclusion. We consider a specific set of these inferences, MS, first studied by Straßburger, corresponding to the logical rules in deep inference proof theory. Despite previous results characterising the individual rules of MS, we show that there is no polynomial-time characterisation of MS, assuming that integers cannot be factorised in polynomial time. We also examine the length of rewrite paths in an extended system MSU that also has unit equations, utilising a notion dubbed trivialisation to reduce the case with units to the case without, amongst other observations on MS-rewriting and the set of linear inferences in general.