dale.miller at inria.fr Abstract. A focused proof system provides a normal form to cut-free proofs that structures the application of invertible and non-invertible inference rules. The focused proof system of Andreoli for linear logic has been applied to both the proof search and the proof normalization approaches to computation. Various proof systems in literature exhibit characteristics of focusing to one degree or another. We present a new, focused proof system for intuitionistic logic, called LJF, and show how other proof systems can be mapped into the new system by inserting logical connectives that prematurely stop focusing. We also use LJF to design a focused proof system for classical logic. Our approach to the design and analysis of these systems is based on the completeness of focusing in linear logic and on the notion of polarity that appears in Girard’s LC and LU proof systems. 1

A focused proof system provides a normal form to cut-free proofs in which the application of invertible and non-invertible inference rules is structured. Within linear logic, the focused proof system of Andreoli provides an elegant and comprehensive normal form for cut-free proofs. Within intuitionistic and classical logics, there are various different proof systems in the literature that exhibit focusing behavior. These focused proof systems have been applied to both the proof search and the proof normalization approaches to computation. We present a new, focused proof system for intuitionistic logic, called LJF, and show how other intuitionistic proof systems can be mapped into the new system by inserting logical connectives that prematurely stop focusing. We also use LJF to design a focused proof system LKF for classical logic. Our approach to the design and analysis of these systems is based on the completeness of focusing in linear logic and on the notion of polarity that appears in Girard’s LC and LU proof systems.

dale.miller at inria.fr saurin at lix.polytechnique.fr Abstract. Probably the most significant result concerning cut-free sequent calculus proofs in linear logic is the completeness of focused proofs. This completeness theorem has a number of proof theoretic applications — e.g. in game semantics, Ludics, and proof search — and more computer science applications — e.g. logic programming, call-by-name/value evaluation. Andreoli proved this theorem for first-order linear logic 15 years ago. In the present paper, we give a new proof of the completeness of focused proofs in terms of proof transformation. The proof of this theorem is simple and modular: it is first proved for MALL and then is extended to full linear logic. Given its modular structure, we show how the proof can be extended to larger systems, such as logics with induction. Our analysis of focused proofs will employ a proof transformation method that leads us to study how focusing and cut elimination interact. A key component of our proof is the construction of a focalization graph which provides an abstraction over how focusing can be organized within a given cut-free proof. Using this graph abstraction allows us to provide a detailed study of atomic bias assignment in a way more refined that is given in Andreoli’s original proof. Permitting more flexible assignment of bias will allow this completeness theorem to help establish the completeness of a number of other automated deduction procedures. Focalization graphs can be used to justify the introduction of an inference rule for multifocus derivation: a rule that should help us better understand the relations between sequentiality and concurrency in linear logic. 1

Most type systems are agnostic regarding the evaluation strategy for the underlying languages, with the value restriction for ML which is absent in Haskell as a notable exception. As type systems become more precise, however, detailed properties of the operational semantics may become visible because properties captured by the types may be sound under one strategy but not the other. For example, intersection types distinguish between call-by-name and call-by-value functions, because the subtyping law (A → B) ∩ (A → C) ≤ A → (B ∩ C) is unsound for the latter in the presence of effects. In this paper we develop a proof-theoretic framework for analyzing the interaction of types with evaluation order, based on the notion of polarity. Polarity was discovered through linear logic, but we propose a fresh origin in Dummett’s program of justifying the logical laws through alternative verificationist or pragmatist “meaning-theories”, which include a bias towards either introduction or elimination rules. We revisit Dummett’s analysis using the tools of Martin-Löf’s judgmental method, and then show how to extend it to a unified polarized logic, with Girard’s “shift ” connectives acting as intermediaries. This logic safely combines intuitionistic and dual intuitionistic reasoning principles, while simultaneously admitting a focusing interpretation for the classical sequent calculus. Then, by applying the Curry-Howard isomorphism to polarized logic, we obtain a single programming language in which evaluation order is reflected at the level of types. Different logical notions correspond directly to natural programming constructs, such as pattern-matching, explicit substitutions, values and call-by-value continuations. We give examples demonstrating the expressiveness of the language and type system, and prove a basic but modular type safety result. We conclude with a brief discussion of extensions to the language with additional effects and types, and sketch the sort of explanation this can provide for operationally-sensitive typing phenomena. 1

Abstract—We present a compact sequent calculus LKU for classical logic organized around the concept of polarization. Focused sequent calculi for classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and multiplicative-additive linear logic are derived as fragments of LKU by increasing the sensitivity of specialized structural rules to polarity information. We develop a unified, streamlined framework for proving cut-elimination in the various fragments. Furthermore, each sublogic can interact with other fragments through cut. We also consider the possibility of introducing classical-linear hybrid logics. Keywords-Proof theory; focused proof systems; linear logic I.

There are a number of cut-free sequent calculus proof systems known that are complete for first-order intuitionistic logic. Proofs in these different systems can vary a great deal from one another. We are interested in providing a flexible and unifying framework that can collect together important aspects of many of these proof systems. First, we suggest that one way to unify these proof systems is to first translate intuitionistic logic formulas into linear logic formulas, then assign a bias (positive or negative) to atomic formulas, and then examine the nature of focused proofs in the resulting linear logic setting. Second, we provide a single focusing proof system for intuitionistic logic and show that these other intuitionistic proof systems can be accounted for by assigning bias to atomic formulas and by inserting certain markers that halt focusing on formulas. Using either approach, we are able to account for proof search mechanisms that allow for forward-chaining (program-directed search), backward-chaining (goaldirected search), and combinations of these two. The keys to developing this kind of proof system for intuitionistic logic involves using Andreoli’s completeness result for focusing proofs and Girard’s notion of polarity used in his LC and LU proof systems. 1

We present a compact sequent calculus LKU for classical logic organized around the concept of polarization. Focused sequent calculi for classical, intuitionistic, and multiplicative-additive linear logics are derived as fragments of the host system by varying the sensitivity of specialized structural rules to polarity information. We identify a general set of criteria under which cut elimination holds in such fragments. From cut elimination we derive a unified proof of the completeness of focusing. Furthermore, each sublogic can interact with other fragments through cut. We examine certain circumstances, for example, in which a classical lemma can be used in an intuitionistic proof while preserving intuitionistic provability. We also examine the possibility of defining classicallinear hybrid logics.

Inspired by the Curry-Howard correspondence, we study normalisation procedures in the depth-bounded intuitionistic sequent calculus of Hudelmaier (1988) for the implicational case, thus strengthening existing approaches to Cut-admissibility. We decorate proofs with proofterms and introduce various term-reduction systems representing proof transformations. In contrast to previous papers which gave different arguments for Cut-admissibility suggesting weakly normalising procedures for Cut-elimination, our main reduction system and all its variations are strongly normalising, with the variations corresponding to different optimisations, some of them with good properties such as confluence.

Most type systems are agnostic regarding the evaluation strategy for the underlying languages, with the value restriction for ML which is absent in Haskell as a notable exception. As type systems become more precise, however, detailed properties of the underlying operational semantics may become visible because properties captured by the types may be sound under one strategy but not the other. To give an example, intersection types distinguish between call-by-name and call-by-value functions because the subtyping rule (A → B) ∩ (A → C) ≤ A → (B ∩ C) is valid for the former but not the latter in the presence of effects. I propose to develop a unified, proof-theoretic approach to analyzing the interaction of types with evaluation order, based on the notion of polarity. Polarity was discovered and developed through linear logic, but I seek a fresh origin in Dummett’s program of justifying the logical laws through alternative “meaning-theories, ” essentially hypotheses as to whether the verification or use of a proposition has a canonical form. In my preliminary work, I showed how a careful judgmental analysis of Dummett’s ideas may be used to define a system of proofs and refutations, with a Curry-Howard interpretation as a single programming language in which the duality between call-by-value and call-by-name is realized as one of types. After extending its type system with (both positive and negative) union and intersection operators and a derived subtyping relationship, I found that many operationally-sensitive typing phenomena (e.g., alternative CBV/CBN subtyping distributivity principles, value and “covalue” restrictions) could be logically reconstructed. Here I give the technical details of this work, and present a plan for addressing open questions and extensions.

Whilst results from Structural Proof Theory can be couched in many formalisms, it is the sequent calculus which is the most amenable of the formalisms to metamathematical treatment. Constructive syntactic proofs are filled with bureaucratic details; rarely are all cases of a proof completed in the literature. Two intermediate results can be used to drastically reduce the amount of effort needed in proofs of Cut admissibility: Weakening and Invertibility. Indeed, whereas there are proofs of Cut admissibility which do not use Invertibility, Weakening is almost always necessary. Use of these results simply shifts the bureaucracy, however; Weakening and Invertibility, whilst more easy to prove, are still not trivial. We give a framework under which sequent calculi can be codified and analysed, which then allows us to prove various results: for a calculus to admit Weakening and for a rule to be invertible in a calculus. For the latter, even though many calculi are investigated, the general condition is simple and easily verified. The results have been applied to G3ip, G3cp, G3c, G3s, G3-LC and G4ip. Invertibility is important in another respect; that of proof-search. Should all rules in a calculus be invertible, then terminating root-first proof search gives a decision procedure