Search

The development of logic has largely been through the 'deductive' paradigm: conclusions are inferred from established premisses. However, the use of logic in the context of both human and machine reasoning is typically through the dual 'reductive' perspective: collections of sufficient premisses are generated from putative conclusions. We call this paradigm, 'reductive logic'. This expression of logic encompass as diverse reasoning activities as proving a formula in a formal system to seeking to meet a friend before noon on Saturday. This paper is a semantical analysis of reductive logic. In particular, we provide mathematical foundations for representing and reasoning about 'reduction operators'. Heuristically, reduction operators may be thought of as `backwards' inference rules. In this paper, we address their mathematical representation, how they are used in the context of reductive reasoning, and, crucially, what makes them 'valid'.

Proof-theoretic semantics, and base-extension semantics in particular, can be seen as a logical realization of inferentialism, in which the meaning of expressions is understood through their use. We present a base-extension semantics for public announcement logic, building on earlier work giving a base-extension semantics for the modal logic $S5$, which in turn builds on earlier such work for $K$, $KT$, $K4$, and $S4$. These analyses rely on a notion of `modal relation' on bases. The main difficulty in extending the existing B-eS for $S5$ to public announcement logic is to account announcements of the form $[\psi]\phi$, which, in this setting, update the modal relations on bases. We provide a detailed analysis of two classical examples, namely the three-player card game and the muddy children puzzle. These examples illustrate how the inferentialist perspective requires fully explicit information about the state of the participating agents.

The nature of information security has been, and probably will continue to be, marked by the asymmetric competition of attackers and defenders over the control of an uncertain environment. The reduction of this degree of uncertainty via an increase in understanding of that environment is a primary objective for both sides. Models are useful tools in this context because they provide a way to understand and experiment with their targets without the usual operational constraints. However, given the technological and social advancements of today, the object of modelling has increased in complexity. Such objects are no longer singular entities, but heterogeneous socio-technical systems interlinked to form large-scale ecosystems. Furthermore, the underlying components of a system might be based on very different epistemic assumptions and methodologies for construction and use. Naturally, consistent, rigorous reasoning about such systems is hard, but necessary for achieving both security and resilience. The goal of this paper is to present a modelling approach tailored for heterogeneous systems based on three elements: an inferentialist interpretation of what a model is, a distributed systems metaphor to structure that interpretation and a co-design cycle to describe the practical design and construction of the model. The underlying idea is that an open world interpretation, supported by a formal, yet generic abstraction facilitating knowledge translation and providing properties for structured reasoning and, used in practice according to the co-design cycle could lead to models that are more likely to achieve their pre-stated goals. We explore the suitability of this method in the context of three different security-oriented models: a physical data loss model, an organisational recovery under ransomware model and an surge capacity trauma unit model., Comment: 36 pages, 8 figures

A central concept within informatics is in modelling such systems for the purpose of reasoning (perhaps automated) about their behaviour and properties. To this end, one requires an interpretation of logical formulae in terms of the resources and states of the system; such an interpretation is called a 'resource semantics' of the logic. This paper shows how 'inferentialism' -- the view that meaning is given in terms of inferential behaviour -- enables a versatile and expressive framework for resource semantics. Specifically, how inferentialism seamlessly incorporates the assertion-based approach of the logic of Bunched Implications, foundational in program verification (e.g., as the basis of Separation Logic), and the renowned number-of-uses reading of Linear Logic. This integration enables reasoning about shared and separated resources in intuitive and familiar ways, as well as about the composition and interfacing of system components., Comment: An abstract of conference paper 'Inferentialist Resource Semantics' (Accepted at MFPS 2024) that was presented at SLSS 2024. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2402.09217

We develop a proof-theoretic semantics -- in particular, a base-extension semantics -- for multi-agent S5 modal logic (and hence also for the usual unindexed S5). Following the inferentialist interpretation of logic, this gives us a semantics in which validity is based on proof rather than truth. In base-extension semantics, the validity of formulae is generated by provability in a `base' of atomic rules and an inductive definition of the validity of the connectives. Base-extension semantics for many interesting logics has been explored by several authors and, in particular, a base-extension semantics for the modal logics K, KT, K4, and S4 has been developed by the present authors. Here, we give a base-extension semantics for multi-agent S5 with $\square_a$, for an agent a, as our primary operators, framed as the knowledge operator K_a. Similarly to Kripke semantics, we make use of relational structure between bases, allowing us to establish a correspondence between certain bases and worlds. We use this to establish the appropriate soundness and completeness results. We conclude by discussing how this semantics can be extended to Dynamic Epistemic Logics (DEL) starting with Public Announcement Logic (PAL).

A short essay presenting the State-Effect Interpretation of natural deduction rules as an explanatory framework for recent developments in proof-theoretic semantics., Comment: Submitted to 'Logic and Philosophy: Historical and Contemporary Issues Conference'

In systems modelling, a 'system' typically comprises located resources relative to which processes execute. One important use of logic in informatics is in modelling such systems for the purpose of reasoning (perhaps automated) about their behaviour and properties. To this end, one requires an interpretation of logical formulae in terms of the resources and states of the system; such an interpretation is called a 'resource semantics' of the logic. This paper shows how inferentialism -- the view that meaning is given in terms of inferential behaviour -- enables a versatile and expressive framework for resource semantics. Specifically, how inferentialism seamlessly incorporates the assertion-based approach of the logic of Bunched Implications, foundational in program verification (e.g., as the basis of Separation Logic), and the renowned number-of-uses reading of Linear Logic. This integration enables reasoning about shared and separated resources in intuitive and familiar ways, as well as about the composition and interfacing of system components.

The infrastructure upon which the functioning of society depends is composed of complex ecosystems of systems. Consequently, we must reason about the properties of such ecosystems, which requires that we construct models of them. There are very many approaches to systems modelling, typically building on complex structural and dynamic frameworks. Our purpose here is to explore a modelling framework based on minimal assumptions, starting from a primitive notion of behaviour, and to show that such an approach allows the recovery of the key ideas, including a generalized CAP theorem, required for effective modelling of and reasoning about ecosystems of systems. We establish a logic of behaviours and use it to express local reasoning principles for the compositional structure of systems., Comment: 24 pages

In proof-theoretic semantics, meaning is based on inference. It may seen as the mathematical expression of the inferentialist interpretation of logic. Much recent work has focused on base-extension semantics, in which the validity of formulas is given by an inductive definition generated by provability in a `base' of atomic rules. Base-extension semantics for classical and intuitionistic propositional logic have been explored by several authors. In this paper, we develop base-extension semantics for the classical propositional modal systems K, KT , K4, and S4, with $\square$ as the primary modal operator. We establish appropriate soundness and completeness theorems and establish the duality between $\square$ and a natural presentation of $\lozenge$. We also show that our semantics is in its current form not complete with respect to euclidean modal logics. Our formulation makes essential use of relational structures on bases., Comment: Accepted to be published in the Logic Journal of the IGPL

The logic of bunched implications (BI) can be seen as the free combination of intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) and intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic (IMLL). We present here a base-extension semantics (B-eS) for BI in the spirit of Sandqvist's B-eS for IPL, deferring an analysis of proof-theoretic validity, in the sense of Dummett and Prawitz, to another occasion. Essential to BI's formulation in proof-theoretic terms is the concept of a `bunch' of hypotheses that is familiar from relevance logic. Bunches amount to trees whose internal vertices are labelled with either the IMLL context-former or the IPL context-former and whose leaves are labelled with propositions or units for the context-formers. This structure presents significant technical challenges in setting up a base-extension semantics for BI. Our approach starts from the B-eS for IPL and the B-eS for IMLL and provides a systematic combination. Such a combination requires that base rules carry bunched structure, and so requires a more complex notion of derivability in a base and a correspondingly richer notion of support in a base. One reason why BI is a substructural logic of interest is that the `resource interpretation' of its semantics, given in terms of sharing and separation and which gives rise to Separation Logic in the field of program verification, is quite distinct from the `number-of-uses' reading of the propositions of linear logic as resources. This resource reading of BI provides useful intuitions in the formulation of its proof-theoretic semantics. We discuss a simple example of the use of the given B-eS in security modelling.

This work is the first exploration of proof-theoretic semantics for a substructural logic. It focuses on the base-extension semantics (B-eS) for intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic (IMLL). The starting point is a review of Sandqvist's B-eS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL), for which we propose an alternative treatment of conjunction that takes the form of the generalized elimination rule for the connective. The resulting semantics is shown to be sound and complete. This motivates our main contribution, a B-eS for IMLL, in which the definitions of the logical constants all take the form of their elimination rule and for which soundness and completeness are established.

In proof-theoretic semantics, model-theoretic validity is replaced by proof-theoretic validity. Validity of formulae is defined inductively from a base giving the validity of atoms using inductive clauses derived from proof-theoretic rules. A key aim is to show completeness of the proof rules without any requirement for formal models. Establishing this for propositional intuitionistic logic (IPL) raises some technical and conceptual issues. We relate Sandqvist's (complete) base-extension semantics of intuitionistic propositional logic to categorical proof theory in presheaves, reconstructing categorically the soundness and completeness arguments, thereby demonstrating the naturality of Sandqvist's constructions. This naturality includes Sandqvist's treatment of disjunction that is based on its second-order or elimination-rule presentation. These constructions embody not just validity, but certain forms of objects of justifications. This analysis is taken a step further by showing that from the perspective of validity, Sandqvist's semantics can also be viewed as the natural disjunction in a category of sheaves.

Pricing insurance for risks associated with information technology systems presents a complex modelling challenge, combining the disciplines of operations management, security, and economics. This work proposes a socioeconomic modelling framework for cyber-insurance decisions compromised of entity relationship diagrams, security maturity models, and economic models, addressing a long-standing research challenge of capturing organizational structure in the design and pricing of cyber-insurance policies. Insurance pricing is usually informed by the long experience insurance companies have of the magnitude and frequency of losses that arise in organizations based on their size, industry sector, and location. Consequently, their calculations of premia will start from a baseline determined by these considerations. A unique challenge of cyber-insurance is that data history is limited and not necessarily informative of future loss risk meaning that established actuarial methodology for other lines of insurance may not be the optimal pricing strategy. The modelling framework proposed in this paper provides a vehicle for agreement between practitioners in the cyber-insurance ecosystem on cyber-security risks and allows for the users to choose their desired level of abstraction in the description of a system., Comment: 32 pages, 11 figures, 12 tables

The use of logical systems for problem-solving may be as diverse as in proving theorems in mathematics or in figuring out how to meet up with a friend. In either case, the problem solving activity is captured by the search for an \emph{argument}, broadly conceived as a certificate for a solution to the problem. Crucially, for such a certificate to be a solution, it has be \emph{valid}, and what makes it valid is that they are well-constructed according to a notion of inference for the underlying logical system. We provide a general framework uniformly describing the use of logic as a mathematics of reasoning in the above sense. We use proof-theoretic validity in the Dummett-Prawitz tradition to define validity of arguments, and use the theory of tactical proof to relate arguments, inference, and search., Comment: submitted

We present a comprehensive programme analysing the decomposition of proof systems for non-classical logics into proof systems for other logics, especially classical logic, using an algebra of constraints. That is, one recovers a proof system for a target logic by enriching a proof system for another, typically simpler, logic with an algebra of constraints that act as correctness conditions on the latter to capture the former; for example, one may use Boolean algebra to give constraints in a sequent calculus for classical propositional logic to produce a sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic. The idea behind such forms of reduction is to obtain a tool for uniform and modular treatment of proof theory and provide a bridge between semantics logics and their proof theory. The article discusses the theoretical background of the project and provides several illustrations of its work in the field of intuitionistic and modal logics. The results include the following: a uniform treatment of modular and cut-free proof systems for a large class of propositional logics; a general criterion for a novel approach to soundness and completeness of a logic with respect to a model-theoretic semantics; and, a case study deriving a model-theoretic semantics from a proof-theoretic specification of a logic.

We give a novel approach to proving soundness and completeness for a logic (henceforth: the object-logic) that bypasses truth-in-a-model to work directly with validity. Instead of working with specific worlds in specific models, we reason with eigenworlds (i.e., generic representatives of worlds) in an arbitrary model. This reasoning is captured by a sequent calculus for a meta-logic (in this case, first-order classical logic) expressive enough to capture the semantics of the object-logic. Essentially, one has a calculus of validity for the object-logic. The method proceeds through the perspective of reductive logic (as opposed to the more traditional paradigm of deductive logic), using the space of reductions as a medium for showing the behavioural equivalence of reduction in the sequent calculus for the object-logic and in the validity calculus. Rather than study the technique in general, we illustrate it for the logic of Bunched Implications (BI), thus IPL and MILL (without negation) are also treated. Intuitively, BI is the free combination of intuitionistic propositional logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic, which renders its meta-theory is quite complex. The literature on BI contains many similar, but ultimately different, algebraic structures and satisfaction relations that either capture only fragments of the logic (albeit large ones) or have complex clauses for certain connectives (e.g., Beth's clause for disjunction instead of Kripke's). It is this complexity that motivates us to use BI as a case-study for this approach to semantics., Comment: accepted

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the approach to meaning in logic based on 'proof' (as opposed to 'truth'). There are two major approaches to P-tS: proof-theoretic validity (P-tV) and base-extension semantics (B-eS). The former is a semantics of arguments, and the latter is a semantics of logical constants. This paper demonstrates that the B-eS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) encapsulates the declarative content of a version of P-tV based on the elimination rules. This explicates how the B-eS for IPL works, and shows the completeness of this version of P-tV.

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the paradigm of semantics in which meaning in logic is based on proof (as opposed to truth). A particular instance of P-tS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) is its base-extension semantics (B-eS). This semantics is given by a relation called support, explaining the meaning of the logical constants, which is parameterized by systems of rules called bases that provide the semantics of atomic propositions. In this paper, we interpret bases as collections of definite formulae and use the operational view of the latter as provided by uniform proof-search -- the proof-theoretic foundation of logic programming (LP) -- to establish the completeness of IPL for the B-eS. This perspective allows negation, a subtle issue in P-tS, to be understood in terms of the negation-as-failure protocol in LP. Specifically, while the denial of a proposition is traditionally understood as the assertion of its negation, in B-eS we may understand the denial of a proposition as the failure to find a proof of it. In this way, assertion and denial are both prime concepts in P-tS., Comment: submitted

Warning: This paper contains a mistake, rendering the proof of the main theorem invalid. The logic of Bunched Implications (BI) combines both additive and multiplicative connectives, which include two primitive intuitionistic implications. As a consequence, contexts in the sequent presentation are not lists, nor multisets, but rather tree-like structures called bunches. This additional complexity notwithstanding, the logic has a well-behaved metatheory admitting all the familiar forms of semantics and proof systems. However, the presentation of an effective proof-search procedure has been elusive since the logic's debut. We show that one can reduce the proof-search space for any given sequent to a primitive recursive set, the argument generalizing Gentzen's decidability argument for classical propositional logic and combining key features of Dyckhoff's contraction-elimination argument for intuitionistic logic. An effective proof-search procedure, and hence decidability of provability, follows as a corollary., Comment: Contains a fatal error

Concurrent Kleene Algebra is an elegant tool for equational reasoning about concurrent programs. An important feature of concurrent programs that is missing from CKA is the ability to restrict legal interleavings. To remedy this we extend the standard model of CKA, namely pomsets, with a new feature, called boxes, which can specify that part of the system is protected from outside interference. We study the algebraic properties of this new model. Another drawback of CKA is that the language used for expressing properties of programs is the same as that which is used to express programs themselves. This is often too restrictive for practical purposes. We provide a logic, 'pomset logic', that is an assertion language for specifying such properties, and which is interpreted on pomsets with boxes. In contrast with other approaches, this logic is not state-based, but rather characterizes the runtime behaviour of a program. We develop the basic metatheory for the relationship between pomset logic and CKA, including frame rules to support local reasoning, and illustrate this relationship with simple examples.

We present a substructural epistemic logic, based on Boolean BI, in which the epistemic modalities are parametrized on agents' local resources. The new modalities can be seen as generalizations of the usual epistemic modalities. The logic combines Boolean BI's resource semantics --- we introduce BI and its resource semantics at some length --- with epistemic agency. We illustrate the use of the logic in systems modelling by discussing some examples about access control, including semaphores, using resource tokens. We also give a labelled tableaux calculus and establish soundness and completeness with respect to the resource semantics.

Stone-type duality theorems, which relate algebraic and relational/topological models, are important tools in logic because -- in addition to elegant abstraction -- they strengthen soundness and completeness to a categorical equivalence, yielding a framework through which both algebraic and topological methods can be brought to bear on a logic. We give a systematic treatment of Stone-type duality for the structures that interpret bunched logics, starting with the weakest systems, recovering the familiar BI and Boolean BI (BBI), and extending to both classical and intuitionistic Separation Logic. We demonstrate the uniformity and modularity of this analysis by additionally capturing the bunched logics obtained by extending BI and BBI with modalities and multiplicative connectives corresponding to disjunction, negation and falsum. This includes the logic of separating modalities (LSM), De Morgan BI (DMBI), Classical BI (CBI), and the sub-classical family of logics extending Bi-intuitionistic (B)BI (Bi(B)BI). We additionally obtain as corollaries soundness and completeness theorems for the specific Kripke-style models of these logics as presented in the literature: for DMBI, the sub-classical logics extending BiBI and a new bunched logic, Concurrent Kleene BI (connecting our work to Concurrent Separation Logic), this is the first time soundness and completeness theorems have been proved. We thus obtain a comprehensive semantic account of the multiplicative variants of all standard propositional connectives in the bunched logic setting. This approach synthesises a variety of techniques from modal, substructural and categorical logic and contextualizes the "resource semantics" interpretation underpinning Separation Logic amongst them.

Models of complex systems are widely used in the physical and social sciences, and the concept of layering, typically building upon graph-theoretic structure, is a common feature. We describe an intuitionistic substructural logic called ILGL that gives an account of layering. The logic is a bunched system, combining the usual intuitionistic connectives, together with a non-commutative, non-associative conjunction (used to capture layering) and its associated implications. We give soundness and completeness theorems for a labelled tableaux system with respect to a Kripke semantics on graphs. We then give an equivalent relational semantics, itself proven equivalent to an algebraic semantics via a representation theorem. We utilise this result in two ways. First, we prove decidability of the logic by showing the finite embeddability property holds for the algebraic semantics. Second, we prove a Stone-type duality theorem for the logic. By introducing the notions of ILGL hyperdoctrine and indexed layered frame we are able to extend this result to a predicate version of the logic and prove soundness and completeness theorems for an extension of the layered graph semantics . We indicate the utility of predicate ILGL with a resource-labelled bigraph model.

We prove strong completeness of a range of substructural logics with respect to a natural poset-based relational semantics using a coalgebraic version of completeness-via-canonicity. By formalizing the problem in the language of coalgebraic logics, we develop a modular theory which covers a wide variety of different logics under a single framework, and lends itself to further extensions. Moreover, we believe that the coalgebraic framework provides a systematic and principled way to study the relationship between resource models on the semantics side, and substructural logics on the syntactic side., Comment: 36 pages

We consider a calculus of resources and processes as a basis for modelling decision-making in multi-agent systems. The calculus represents the regulation of agents' choices using utility functions that take account of context. Associated with the calculus is a (Hennessy Milner-style) context sensitive modal logic of state. As an application, we show how a notion of `trust domain' can be defined for multi-agent systems., Comment: 11 pages, Contributed talk at TARK 2013 (arXiv:1310.6382) http://www.tark.org

We consider the problem of searching for proofs in sequential presentations of logics with multiplicative (or intensional) connectives. Specifically, we start with the multiplicative fragment of linear logic and extend, on the one hand, to linear logic with its additives and, on the other, to the additives of the logic of bunched implications, BI. We give an algebraic method for calculating the distribution of the side-formulae in multiplicative rules which allows the occurrence or non-occurrence of a formula on a branch of a proof to be determined once sufficient information is available. Each formula in the conclusion of such a rule is assigned a Boolean expression. As a search proceeds, a set of Boolean constraint equations is generated. We show that a solution to such a set of equations determines a proof corresponding to the given search. We explain a range of strategies, from the lazy to the eager, for solving sets of constraint equations. We indicate how to apply our methods systematically to large family of relevant systems., Comment: Submission to ACM Transactions on Computational Logic