Trustworthy Formal Natural Language Specifications

Interactive proof assistants are computer programs carefully constructed to check a human-designed proof of a mathematical claim with high confidence in the implementation. However, this only validates truth of a formal claim, which may have been mistranslated from a claim made in natural language. This is especially problematic when using proof assistants to formally verify the correctness of software with respect to a natural language specification. The translation from informal to formal remains a challenging, time-consuming process that is difficult to audit for correctness. This paper shows that it is possible to build support for specifications written in expressive subsets of natural language, within existing proof assistants, consistent with the principles used to establish trust and auditability in proof assistants themselves. We implement a means to provide specifications in a modularly extensible formal subset of English, and have them automatically translated into formal claims, entirely within the Lean proof assistant. Our approach is extensible (placing no permanent restrictions on grammatical structure), modular (allowing information about new words to be distributed alongside libraries), and produces proof certificates explaining how each word was interpreted and how the sentence's structure was used to compute the meaning. We apply our prototype to the translation of various English descriptions of formal specifications from a popular textbook into Lean formalizations; all can be translated correctly with a modest lexicon with only minor modifications related to lexicon size.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2205.0781

Non-associative, Non-commutative Multi-modal Linear Logic

Adding multi-modalities (called subexponentials) to linear logic enhances its power as a logical framework, which has been extensively used in the specification of e.g. proof systems, programming languages and bigraphs. Initially, subexponentials allowed for classical, linear, affine or relevant behaviors. Recently, this framework was enhanced so to allow for commutativity as well. In this work, we close the cycle by considering associativity. We show that the resulting system (acLLΣ ) admits the (multi)cut rule, and we prove two undecidability results for fragments/variations of acLLΣ

Asymmetric Combination of Logics is Functorial: A Survey

Asymmetric combination of logics is a formal process that develops the characteristic features of a specific logic on top of another one. Typical examples include the development of temporal, hybrid, and probabilistic dimensions over a given base logic. These examples are surveyed in the paper under a particular perspective—that this sort of combination of logics possesses a functorial nature. Such a view gives rise to several interesting questions. They range from the problem of combining translations (between logics), to that of ensuring property preservation along the process, and the way different asymmetric combinations can be related through appropriate natural transformations

Implementing Theorem Provers in Logic Programming

Logic programming languages have many characteristics that indicate that they should serve as good implementation languages for theorem provers. For example, they are based on search and unification which are also fundamental to theorem proving. We show how an extended logic programming language can be used to implement theorem provers and other aspects of proof systems for a variety of logics. In this language first-order terms are replaced with simply-typed λ-terms, and thus unification becomes higher-order unification. Also, implication and universal quantification are allowed in goals. We illustrate that inference rules can be very naturally specified, and that the primitive search operations of this language correspond to those needed for searching for proofs. We argue on several levels that this extended logic programming language provides a very suitable environment for implementing tactic style theorem provers. Such theorem provers provide extensive capabilities for integrating techniques for automated theorem proving into an interactive proof environment. We are also concerned with representing proofs as objects. We illustrate how such objects can be constructed and manipulated in the logic programming setting. Finally, we propose extensions to tactic style theorem provers in working toward the goal of developing an interactive theorem proving environment that provides a user with many tools and techniques for building and manipulating proofs, and that integrates sophisticated capabilities for automated proof discovery. Many of the theorem provers we present have been implemented in the higher-order logic programming language λProlog