A Case Study on Logical Relations using Contextual Types

Proofs by logical relations play a key role to establish rich properties such as normalization or contextual equivalence. They are also challenging to mechanize. In this paper, we describe the completeness proof of algorithmic equality for simply typed lambda-terms by Crary where we reason about logically equivalent terms in the proof environment Beluga. There are three key aspects we rely upon: 1) we encode lambda-terms together with their operational semantics and algorithmic equality using higher-order abstract syntax 2) we directly encode the corresponding logical equivalence of well-typed lambda-terms using recursive types and higher-order functions 3) we exploit Beluga's support for contexts and the equational theory of simultaneous substitutions. This leads to a direct and compact mechanization, demonstrating Beluga's strength at formalizing logical relations proofs.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0759

Analyzing Individual Proofs as the Basis of Interoperability between Proof Systems

We describe the first results of a project of analyzing in which theories formal proofs can be ex- pressed. We use this analysis as the basis of interoperability between proof systems.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2017, arXiv:1712.0089

Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi

Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi. Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other, independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona, Spain. 201

Equations for Hereditary Substitution in Leivant's Predicative System F: A Case Study

This paper presents a case study of formalizing a normalization proof for Leivant's Predicative System F using the Equations package. Leivant's Predicative System F is a stratified version of System F, where type quantification is annotated with kinds representing universe levels. A weaker variant of this system was studied by Stump & Eades, employing the hereditary substitution method to show normalization. We improve on this result by showing normalization for Leivant's original system using hereditary substitutions and a novel multiset ordering on types. Our development is done in the Coq proof assistant using the Equations package, which provides an interface to define dependently-typed programs with well-founded recursion and full dependent pattern- matching. Equations allows us to define explicitly the hereditary substitution function, clarifying its algorithmic behavior in presence of term and type substitutions. From this definition, consistency can easily be derived. The algorithmic nature of our development is crucial to reflect languages with type quantification, enlarging the class of languages on which reflection methods can be used in the proof assistant.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.07597. www: http://equations-fpred.gforge.inria.fr

The Grail theorem prover: Type theory for syntax and semantics

As the name suggests, type-logical grammars are a grammar formalism based on logic and type theory. From the prespective of grammar design, type-logical grammars develop the syntactic and semantic aspects of linguistic phenomena hand-in-hand, letting the desired semantics of an expression inform the syntactic type and vice versa. Prototypical examples of the successful application of type-logical grammars to the syntax-semantics interface include coordination, quantifier scope and extraction.This chapter describes the Grail theorem prover, a series of tools for designing and testing grammars in various modern type-logical grammars which functions as a tool . All tools described in this chapter are freely available

Refinement Types for Logical Frameworks and Their Interpretation as Proof Irrelevance

Refinement types sharpen systems of simple and dependent types by offering expressive means to more precisely classify well-typed terms. We present a system of refinement types for LF in the style of recent formulations where only canonical forms are well-typed. Both the usual LF rules and the rules for type refinements are bidirectional, leading to a straightforward proof of decidability of typechecking even in the presence of intersection types. Because we insist on canonical forms, structural rules for subtyping can now be derived rather than being assumed as primitive. We illustrate the expressive power of our system with examples and validate its design by demonstrating a precise correspondence with traditional presentations of subtyping. Proof irrelevance provides a mechanism for selectively hiding the identities of terms in type theories. We show that LF refinement types can be interpreted as predicates using proof irrelevance, establishing a uniform relationship between two previously studied concepts in type theory. The interpretation and its correctness proof are surprisingly complex, lending support to the claim that refinement types are a fundamental construct rather than just a convenient surface syntax for certain uses of proof irrelevance