Collection analysis for Horn clause programs

We consider approximating data structures with collections of the items that they contain. For examples, lists, binary trees, tuples, etc, can be approximated by sets or multisets of the items within them. Such approximations can be used to provide partial correctness properties of logic programs. For example, one might wish to specify than whenever the atom $sort(t,s)$ is proved then the two lists $t$ and $s$ contain the same multiset of items (that is, $s$ is a permutation of $t$). If sorting removes duplicates, then one would like to infer that the sets of items underlying $t$ and $s$ are the same. Such results could be useful to have if they can be determined statically and automatically. We present a scheme by which such collection analysis can be structured and automated. Central to this scheme is the use of linear logic as a omputational logic underlying the logic of Horn clauses

Matching Logic

This paper presents matching logic, a first-order logic (FOL) variant for specifying and reasoning about structure by means of patterns and pattern matching. Its sentences, the patterns, are constructed using variables, symbols, connectives and quantifiers, but no difference is made between function and predicate symbols. In models, a pattern evaluates into a power-set domain (the set of values that match it), in contrast to FOL where functions and predicates map into a regular domain. Matching logic uniformly generalizes several logical frameworks important for program analysis, such as: propositional logic, algebraic specification, FOL with equality, modal logic, and separation logic. Patterns can specify separation requirements at any level in any program configuration, not only in the heaps or stores, without any special logical constructs for that: the very nature of pattern matching is that if two structures are matched as part of a pattern, then they can only be spatially separated. Like FOL, matching logic can also be translated into pure predicate logic with equality, at the same time admitting its own sound and complete proof system. A practical aspect of matching logic is that FOL reasoning with equality remains sound, so off-the-shelf provers and SMT solvers can be used for matching logic reasoning. Matching logic is particularly well-suited for reasoning about programs in programming languages that have an operational semantics, but it is not limited to this

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

On Safe Folding

In [3] a general fold operation has been introduced for definite programs wrt computed answer substitution semantics. It differs from the fold operation defined by Tamaki and Sato in [26,25] because its application does not depend on the transformation history. This paper extends the results in [3] by giving a more powerful sufficient condition for the preservation of computed answer substitutions. Such a condition is meant to deal with the critical case when the atom introduced by folding depends on the clause to which the fold applies. The condition compares the dependency degree between the fonding atom and the folded clause, with the semantic delay between the folding atom and the ones to be folded. The result is also extended to a more general replacement operation, by showing that it can be decomposed into a sequence of definition, general folding and unfolding operations

Core TuLiP

We propose CoreTuLiP - the core of a trust management language based on Logic Programming. CoreTuLiP is based on a subset of moded logic programming, but enjoys the features of TM languages such as RT; in particular clauses are issued by different authorities and stored in a distributed manner. We present a lookup and inference algorithm which we prove to be correct and complete w.r.t. the declarative semantics. CoreTuLiP enjoys uniform syntax and the well-established semantics and is expressive enough to model scenarios which are hard to deal with in RT

Changing a semantics: opportunism or courage?

The generalized models for higher-order logics introduced by Leon Henkin, and their multiple offspring over the years, have become a standard tool in many areas of logic. Even so, discussion has persisted about their technical status, and perhaps even their conceptual legitimacy. This paper gives a systematic view of generalized model techniques, discusses what they mean in mathematical and philosophical terms, and presents a few technical themes and results about their role in algebraic representation, calibrating provability, lowering complexity, understanding fixed-point logics, and achieving set-theoretic absoluteness. We also show how thinking about Henkin's approach to semantics of logical systems in this generality can yield new results, dispelling the impression of adhocness. This paper is dedicated to Leon Henkin, a deep logician who has changed the way we all work, while also being an always open, modest, and encouraging colleague and friend.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in: The life and work of Leon Henkin: Essays on his contributions (Studies in Universal Logic) eds: Manzano, M., Sain, I. and Alonso, E., 201

An assertion language for constraint logic programs

In an advanced program development environment, such as that discussed in the introduction of this book, several tools may coexist which handle both the program and information on the program in different ways. Also, these tools may interact among themselves and with the user. Thus, the different tools and the user need some way to communicate. It is our design principie that such communication be performed in terms of assertions. Assertions are syntactic objects which allow expressing properties of programs. Several assertion languages have been used in the past in different contexts, mainly related to program debugging. In this chapter we propose a general language of assertions which is used in different tools for validation and debugging of constraint logic programs in the context of the DiSCiPl project. The assertion language proposed is parametric w.r.t. the particular constraint domain and properties of interest being used in each different tool. The language proposed is quite general in that it poses few restrictions on the kind of properties which may be expressed. We believe the assertion language we propose is of practical relevance and appropriate for the different uses required in the tools considered

Programming in logic without logic programming

In previous work, we proposed a logic-based framework in which computation is the execution of actions in an attempt to make reactive rules of the form if antecedent then consequent true in a canonical model of a logic program determined by an initial state, sequence of events, and the resulting sequence of subsequent states. In this model-theoretic semantics, reactive rules are the driving force, and logic programs play only a supporting role. In the canonical model, states, actions and other events are represented with timestamps. But in the operational semantics, for the sake of efficiency, timestamps are omitted and only the current state is maintained. State transitions are performed reactively by executing actions to make the consequents of rules true whenever the antecedents become true. This operational semantics is sound, but incomplete. It cannot make reactive rules true by preventing their antecedents from becoming true, or by proactively making their consequents true before their antecedents become true. In this paper, we characterize the notion of reactive model, and prove that the operational semantics can generate all and only such models. In order to focus on the main issues, we omit the logic programming component of the framework.Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

From nominal sets binding to functions and lambda-abstraction: connecting the logic of permutation models with the logic of functions

Permissive-Nominal Logic (PNL) extends first-order predicate logic with term-formers that can bind names in their arguments. It takes a semantics in (permissive-)nominal sets. In PNL, the forall-quantifier or lambda-binder are just term-formers satisfying axioms, and their denotation is functions on nominal atoms-abstraction. Then we have higher-order logic (HOL) and its models in ordinary (i.e. Zermelo-Fraenkel) sets; the denotation of forall or lambda is functions on full or partial function spaces. This raises the following question: how are these two models of binding connected? What translation is possible between PNL and HOL, and between nominal sets and functions? We exhibit a translation of PNL into HOL, and from models of PNL to certain models of HOL. It is natural, but also partial: we translate a restricted subsystem of full PNL to HOL. The extra part which does not translate is the symmetry properties of nominal sets with respect to permutations. To use a little nominal jargon: we can translate names and binding, but not their nominal equivariance properties. This seems reasonable since HOL---and ordinary sets---are not equivariant. Thus viewed through this translation, PNL and HOL and their models do different things, but they enjoy non-trivial and rich subsystems which are isomorphic