Completeness of the ZX-Calculus

The ZX-Calculus is a graphical language for diagrammatic reasoning in quantum mechanics and quantum information theory. It comes equipped with an equational presentation. We focus here on a very important property of the language: completeness, which roughly ensures the equational theory captures all of quantum mechanics. We first improve on the known-to-be-complete presentation for the so-called Clifford fragment of the language - a restriction that is not universal - by adding some axioms. Thanks to a system of back-and-forth translation between the ZX-Calculus and a third-party complete graphical language, we prove that the provided axiomatisation is complete for the first approximately universal fragment of the language, namely Clifford+T. We then prove that the expressive power of this presentation, though aimed at achieving completeness for the aforementioned restriction, extends beyond Clifford+T, to a class of diagrams that we call linear with Clifford+T constants. We use another version of the third-party language - and an adapted system of back-and-forth translation - to complete the language for the ZX-Calculus as a whole, that is, with no restriction. We briefly discuss the added axioms, and finally, we provide a complete axiomatisation for an altered version of the language which involves an additional generator, making the presentation simpler

Information sharing among ideal agents

Multi-agent systems operating in complex domains crucially require agents to interact with each other. An important result of this interaction is that some of the private knowledge of the agents is being shared in the group of agents. This thesis investigates the theme of knowledge sharing from a theoretical point of view by means of the formal tools provided by modal logic. More specifically this thesis addresses the following three points. First, the case of hypercube systems, a special class of interpreted systems as defined by Halpern and colleagues, is analysed in full detail. It is here proven that the logic S5WDn constitutes a sound and complete axiomatisation for hypercube systems. This logic, an extension of the modal system S5n commonly used to represent knowledge of a multi-agent system, regulates how knowledge is being shared among agents modelled by hypercube systems. The logic S5WDn is proven to be decidable. Hypercube systems are proven to be synchronous agents with perfect recall that communicate only by broadcasting, in separate work jointly with Ron van der Meyden not fully reported in this thesis. Second, it is argued that a full spectrum of degrees of knowledge sharing can be present in any multi-agent system, with no sharing and full sharing at the extremes. This theme is investigated axiomatically and a range of logics representing a particular class of knowledge sharing between two agents is presented. All the logics but two in this spectrum are proven complete by standard canonicity proofs. We conjecture that these two remaining logics are not canonical and it is an open problem whether or not they are complete. Third, following a influential position paper by Halpern and Moses, the idea of refining and checking of knowledge structures in multi-agent systems is investigated. It is shown that, Kripke models, the standard semantic tools for this analysis are not adequate and an alternative notion, Kripke trees, is put forward. An algorithm for refining and checking Kripke trees is presented and its major properties investigated. The algorithm succeeds in solving the famous muddy-children puzzle, in which agents communicate and reason about each other's knowledge. The thesis concludes by discussing the extent to which combining logics, a promising new area in pure logic, can provide a significant boost in research for epistemic and other theories for multi-agent systems

Dynamic epistemic logics for abstract argumentation

AbstractThis paper introduces a multi-agent dynamic epistemic logic for abstract argumentation. Its main motivation is to build a general framework for modelling the dynamics of a debate, which entails reasoning about goals, beliefs, as well as policies of communication and information update by the participants. After locating our proposal and introducing the relevant tools from abstract argumentation, we proceed to build a three-tiered logical approach. At the first level, we use the language of propositional logic to encode states of a multi-agent debate. This language allows to specify which arguments any agent is aware of, as well as their subjective justification status. We then extend our language and semantics to that of epistemic logic, in order to model individuals' beliefs about the state of the debate, which includes uncertainty about the information available to others. As a third step, we introduce a framework of dynamic epistemic logic and its semantics, which is essentially based on so-called event models with factual change. We provide completeness results for a number of systems and show how existing formalisms for argumentation dynamics and unquantified uncertainty can be reduced to their semantics. The resulting framework allows reasoning about subtle epistemic and argumentative updates—such as the effects of different levels of trust in a source—and more in general about the epistemic dimensions of strategic communication

A framework for automated concurrency verification

Reasoning systems based on Concurrent Separation Logic make verifying complex concurrent algorithms readily possible. Such algorithms contain subtle protocols of permission and resource transfer between threads; to cope with these intricacies, modern concurrent separation logics contain many moving parts and integrate many bespoke logical components. Verifying concurrent algorithms by hand consumes much time, effort, and expertise. As a result, computer-assisted verification is a fertile research topic, and fully automated verification is a popular research goal. Unfortunately, the complexity of modern concurrent separation logics makes them hard to automate, and the proliferation and fast turnover of such logics causes a downward pressure against building tools for new logics. As a result, many such logics lack tooling. This dissertation proposes Starling: a scheme for creating concurrent program logics that are automatable by construction. Starling adapts the existing Concurrent Views Framework for sound concurrent reasoning systems, overlaying a framework for reducing concurrent proof outlines to verification conditions in existing theories (such as those accepted by off-the-shelf sequential solvers). This dissertation describes Starling in a bottom-up, modular manner. First, it shows the derivation of a series of general concurrency proof rules from the Views framework. Next, it shows how one such rule leads to the Starling framework itself. From there, it outlines a series of increasingly elaborate frontends: ways of decomposing individual Hoare triples over atomic actions into verification conditions suitable for encoding into backend theories. Each frontend leads to a concurrent program logic. Finally, the dissertation presents a tool for verifying C-style concurrent proof outlines, based on one of the above frontends. It gives examples of such outlines, covering a variety of algorithms, backend solvers, and proof techniques