Non uniform (hyper/multi)coherence spaces

In (hyper)coherence semantics, proofs/terms are cliques in (hyper)graphs. Intuitively, vertices represent results of computations and the edge relation witnesses the ability of being assembled into a same piece of data or a same (strongly) stable function, at arrow types. In (hyper)coherence semantics, the argument of a (strongly) stable functional is always a (strongly) stable function. As a consequence, comparatively to the relational semantics, where there is no edge relation, some vertices are missing. Recovering these vertices is essential for the purpose of reconstructing proofs/terms from their interpretations. It shall also be useful for the comparison with other semantics, like game semantics. In [BE01], Bucciarelli and Ehrhard introduced a so called non uniform coherence space semantics where no vertex is missing. By constructing the co-free exponential we set a new version of this last semantics, together with non uniform versions of hypercoherences and multicoherences, a new semantics where an edge is a finite multiset. Thanks to the co-free construction, these non uniform semantics are deterministic in the sense that the intersection of a clique and of an anti-clique contains at most one vertex, a result of interaction, and extensionally collapse onto the corresponding uniform semantics.Comment: 32 page

Visible acyclic differential nets, Part I: Semantics

International audienceWe give a geometric condition that characterizes the differential nets having a finitary interpretation in finiteness spaces: visible acyclicity. This is based on visible paths, an extension to differential nets of a class of paths we introduced in the framework of linear logic nets. The characterization is then carried out as follows: the differential nets having no visible cycles are exactly those whose interpretation is a finitary relation. Visible acyclicity discloses a new kind of correctness for the promotion rule of linear logic, which goes beyond sequent calculus correctness

Proof Diagrams for Multiplicative Linear Logic

The original idea of proof nets can be formulated by means of interaction nets syntax. Additional machinery as switching, jumps and graph connectivity is needed in order to ensure correspondence between a proof structure and a correct proof in sequent calculus. In this paper we give an interpretation of proof nets in the syntax of string diagrams. Even though we lose standard proof equivalence, our construction allows to define a framework where soundness and well-typeness of a diagram can be verified in linear time.Comment: In Proceedings LINEARITY 2016, arXiv:1701.0452

A System of Interaction and Structure III: The Complexity of BV and Pomset Logic

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

On noncommutative extensions of linear logic

Pomset logic introduced by Retor\'e is an extension of linear logic with a self-dual noncommutative connective. The logic is defined by means of proof-nets, rather than a sequent calculus. Later a deep inference system BV was developed with an eye to capturing Pomset logic, but equivalence of system has not been proven up to now. As for a sequent calculus formulation, it has not been known for either of these logics, and there are convincing arguments that such a sequent calculus in the usual sense simply does not exist for them. In an on-going work on semantics we discovered a system similar to Pomset logic, where a noncommutative connective is no longer self-dual. Pomset logic appears as a degeneration, when the class of models is restricted. Motivated by these semantic considerations, we define in the current work a semicommutative multiplicative linear logic}, which is multiplicative linear logic extended with two nonisomorphic noncommutative connectives (not to be confused with very different Abrusci-Ruet noncommutative logic). We develop a syntax of proof-nets and show how this logic degenerates to Pomset logic. However, a more interesting problem than just finding yet another noncommutative logic is to find a sequent calculus for this logic. We introduce decorated sequents, which are sequents equipped with an extra structure of a binary relation of reachability on formulas. We define a decorated sequent calculus for semicommutative logic and prove that it is cut-free, sound and complete. This is adapted to "degenerate" variations, including Pomset logic. Thus, in particular, we give a variant of sequent calculus formulation for Pomset logic, which is one of the key results of the paper

On paths-based criteria for polynomial time complexity in proof-nets

Girard's Light linear logic (LLL) characterized polynomial time in the proof-as-program paradigm with a bound on cut elimination. This logic relied on a stratification principle and a "one-door" principle which were generalized later respectively in the systems L^4 and L^3a. Each system was brought with its own complex proof of Ptime soundness. In this paper we propose a broad sufficient criterion for Ptime soundness for linear logic subsystems, based on the study of paths inside the proof-nets, which factorizes proofs of soundness of existing systems and may be used for future systems. As an additional gain, our bound stands for any reduction strategy whereas most bounds in the literature only stand for a particular strategy.Comment: Long version of a conference pape

From Proof Nets to the Free *-Autonomous Category

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.Comment: LaTeX, 44 pages, final version for LMCS; v2: updated bibliograph