Alessio Guglielmi's Research and Teaching / Deep Inference
Deep Inference
WebBased Quantum BioCryptography and Creative NanoSecurity for the Cloud
This page tries to be a comprehensive account of the ongoing research on deep inference.
Deep inference started as a personal project, but it is now growing fast and I'm struggling to keep pace with all the developments. Some of them I do not understand in detail.
Please keep in mind that what I wrote below can be very subjective and not reflect the opinions of the people involved in this research.
If you disagree or find inaccuracies, please let me know!
If you are an expert of proof theory and want to quickly understand what deep inference is about, go to Deep Inference in One Minute. 

Latest News
19 December 2012The threeyear EPSRC project Efficient and Natural Proof Systems at the University of Bath has been approved.
20 January 2012The twoyear Royal Society International Exchanges Grant Sharing and Sequentiality in Proof Systems with Locality between the University of Bath and the Università di Torino has been approved.
1517 June 2011First Structural meeting in Paris.
2 December 2010ANR/FWF threeyear project Structural is approved (about 2,324,000 EUR).
14–16 September 2010Meeting REDO: Redesigning Logical Syntax in Bath.
9–20 August 2010Course Introduction to Proof Theory, by Lutz Straßburger, at ESSLLI 2010 in Copenhagen
23–24 February 2010Meeting Geometric and Logic Approaches to Computation in Nancy 
Contents
1Introduction
Deep inference is a new methodology in proof theory, which is the discipline that studies mathematical proofs. Deep inference is about designing proof systems and formalisms with excellent properties of analyticity, proof complexity and semantics of proofs. With deep inference, we express logics that elude the traditional methods of proof theory, in particular we represent modal logics and logics related to process algebras. Deep inference provides beautiful and simple proof systems and formalisms.
The following picture illustrates a point of view on deep inference: most of traditional proof theory adopts a methodology that we call shallow inference. The methodologies of shallow and deep inference inspire the design of formalisms, which, in turn, express proof systems for several logics. At the bottom of the picture, solid arrows signal the existence of widely established proof systems in the given formalisms, while dashed arrows stand for a shabbier relationship. Some formalisms in deep inference are under development (dashed border).
We will now explore the concepts in the picture in more detail, and we will summarise the results we obtained so far in deep inference, and the current research themes.
1.1Proof Systems
A formal proof consists in breaking down a mathematical argument into small inference steps and connecting them together. Its validity can then be checked by local inspection of the inference steps, as dictated by syntactic inference rules. Checking a proof is a mechanical procedure, and this is much of its value: human fallacies are ruled out, and computers can be employed for checking and also discovering proofs.
A logic can be considered a class of theorems. Normally, mathematics is performed in firstorder classical logic, but, in many cases, we use stronger or weaker systems. In computer science, we use many logics, some of which are rather far apart from classical logic.
A set of inference rules is called a (proof) system. For any given logic, several different proof systems exist, which prove the same theorems. However, they might greatly differ for several properties, notably:
 The efficiency in representing proofs: Some systems make available much smaller proofs than others do (these aspects are studied in proof complexity);
 Supporting the automatic discovery of proofs: Some systems immediately entail efficient proof search algorithms, some do not, others do with some effort; the key property for efficient proof search is called analyticity.
 The ability of expressing proofs that are mathematically natural, and to do so without unnecessary syntactic artefacts (bureaucracy): One of the main research problems in proof theory is to find a good correspondence between proofs and their meaning. In particular, the problem of proof identity is prominent; it consists in finding nontrivial notions of proof equivalence, supported by appropriate semantics of proofs and proof systems.
In our research, these three properties of proof systems play a crucial role.
1.2Formalisms
Proof systems can be classified according to the style they adhere to. These classes are not always mathematically defined, but, in practice, they are recognisable. We say that proof systems belong to different formalisms. The most important traditional formalisms are the FregeHilbert formalism, the sequent calculus and natural deduction, and there are many others; the sequent calculus^{*} is special because it supports analyticity.
Different formalisms allow for proof systems with different properties. For example, systems in the natural deduction formalism do not lend themselves easily to proof search. Systems with excellent proof search properties, due to analyticity, can be designed in the sequent calculus^{*}; however, they produce proofs which are exponentially bigger than those in natural deduction, on certain classes of theorems.
Often, formalisms entail interesting notions of normalisation inside their proof systems. For example, natural deduction systems possess a notion of normalisation that corresponds closely to a very important notion of computation, in what we call the CurryHoward correspondence: normalising proofs in certain systems for intuitionistic logic corresponds to computing in the simplytyped lambdacalculus.
It is sometimes very challenging to design proof systems for a given logic in a given formalism: for example, many variations of modal logic, which are easily expressible in FregeHilbert systems, only find awkward presentations in sequentcalculus systems. Often, the reason for adopting the sequent calculus^{*} is for getting analyticity; however, in some cases, with great effort, one only gets sequentcalculus systems that are not analytic.
For many logics, like modal logic, it might be necessary to adopt nontraditional formalisms, which allow for more freedom in designing inference rules. For example, many modal logic variations can be expressed with analytic proof systems in a formalism called hypersequents, which is a generalisation of the sequent calculus^{*}.
1.3Shallow and Deep Inference
Formalisms, to a very large extent, dictate the design of inference rules. For example, natural deduction prescribes that, for every connective, two rules are given: one that introduces it and one that eliminates it.
In all traditional formalisms, and in the modern ones derived from them, a methodology that we call shallow inference is adopted. 'Shallow' inference rules operate on connectives that appear in close proximity to the root of formulae, when we consider them as trees. For example, the introduction and elimination rules of natural deduction operate on root connectives of formulae. The sequent calculus usually goes one level deeper than natural deduction, and in some cases two levels deeper. The hypersequents formalism, which is derived from the sequent calculus, does the same.
Shallow inference is a very natural methodology, because it is about generating proofs by a straightforward structural induction on the formulae they prove. However, shallow inference is not optimal regarding the three properties of proof systems mentioned above, and in particular:
 it seems incapable of providing analytic formalisms that are efficient regarding proof complexity;
 formalisms tend to have great bureaucracy, i.e., syntax makes for convoluted representations of mathematical arguments.
Shallow inference also has difficulties in coping with modal logic: modal logic theories can be defined in FregeHilbert systems, but obtaining analyticity for them (in sequent systems) can be very difficult, and in some cases unachieved. It is equally difficult or impossible to express proof systems for some logics involving noncommutativity, linearity and other features typical of computerscience concurrency languages, like process algebras.
All these seemingly heterogeneous difficulties can largely be ascribed to one cause: the adoption of the shallowinference methodology. In fact, and very roughly, all shallowinference formalisms require the adoption of a socalled meta, or structural, level for organising the 'pieces' of formulae obtained by the structural induction they adopt. For example, the sequent calculus organises these pieces into sets and trees. Because of the historical development of proof theory, the meta level, in a sense, coincides with the algebraic structure of classical logic. This becomes an increasingly serious impediment the more the logics one wants to express depart from classical logic.
Deep inference is based on a very simple idea: formalisms adopt the same algebraic structure of any given logic for keeping organised the pieces of proofs; in other words, there is no meta level. This means that inference rules must be able to operate at any level ('deeply') inside formula trees.
The idea is simple, but the adoption of deep inference poses two difficult challenges:
 How do we design inference rules? The absence of a given meta level removes any kind of constraint on inference rules; this freedom is beneficial but entails an unlimited choice of rules, which is daunting, and can also be dangerous (we could create monsters).
 How do we prove normalisation? The greatest part of proof theory's technical body is about normalisation, i.e., transformation of proofs into ones with interesting properties, for example, analyticity. Adopting deep inference breaks at the core all existing normalisation techniques, so a theory of normalisation must be developed from scratch.
1.4Main Results in Deep Inference
We developed the proof theory of a deepinference formalism that we call the calculus of structures. This is the simplest formalism conceivable in deep inference, because inference rules behave as rewrite rules in term rewriting systems. The calculus of structures is a milestone in the development of deep inference, because of its simplicity and its resemblance to traditional formalisms. Moreover, the normalisation techniques of the calculus of structures are applicable also to other formalisms in deep inference, currently under development.
We achieved the following results for the calculus of structures:
 Classical, intuitionistic, linear and several modal logics are expressed in analytic systems.
 Mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logics BV and NEL are expressed in analytic systems, and we proved that these logics cannot be expressed analytically in shallow inference; these logics have a close correspondence to process algebras like Milner's CCS.
 General and powerful normalisation techniques have been developed for the classical, linear, BV and NEL logics; new normalisation notions, in addition to the traditional cut elimination, have been achieved.
 All proof systems (apart from minor exceptions) are entirely made of local inference rules; a local inference rule is one whose computational complexity is constant. Locality is a difficult property to achieve, and it is not achievable in sequentcalculus systems for classical logic.
 All these proof systems are extremely modular; this means that the interdependency of inference rules, regarding normalisation and other properties, is very low.
 Many systems have been implemented, thanks to techniques that yield inference rules that improve proof search efficiency without sacrificing prooftheoretic cleanliness.
 All the proof systems are simple, in the sense that their inference rules are small and natural.
The calculus of structures generalises most shallowinference formalisms, in particular the sequent calculus. This means that every proof in shallowinference formalisms can be 'mimicked' in the calculus of structures, by preserving complexity and without losing any structural property.
It might be desirable, for example for constraining proof search and reducing nondeterminism, to reach a compromise between the sequent calculus and the calculus of structures. A new deepinference formalism, called nested sequents, has been developed, especially targeting modal logics. In deep sequents (and so, in the calculus of structures), modal logics like B and K5, which do not enjoy analytic presentations in the sequent calculus, find simple analytic systems.
The cirquent calculus, a new formalism recently developed by Giorgi Japaridze, benefits from a deepinference presentation.
The calculus of structures promoted the discovery of a new class of proof nets for classical and linear logic. Proof nets are not proof systems, because they cannot be checked by local inspection, but they play a crucial role in understanding the semantics of proofs, which is one of the most active research areas in proof theory, in close connection with theoretical computer science.
1.5Perspective
Designing syntax is an eminently semantic activity: the only way to avoid creating monsters is having clear semantic objectives and guidance. The ambition of deep inference is to provide a unifying, simple syntax of proofs, which, above all, reflects the meaning of proofs. The semantics of proofs depends heavily on syntax, because proofs, more than formulae, are objects that are built, they are constructions, not just statements. Because of lack of adequate syntax, at present, we are basically unable to answer questions like Are two given proofs the same? (This is the socalled Hilbert's 24th problem.) The only answers we can give right now are either trivial (and uninteresting) or excessively technical. One of the main objectives of deep inference is to provide a simple answer to this question.
1.6History
Deep inference comes from linear logic and process algebras; more specifically, it comes from seeing proofs as concurrent processes. The first development has been the definition of the calculus of structures and a cut elimination proof for the logic BV, which was studied for being the logical counterpart of the core of the process algebra CCS. We realised that the techniques developed for BV had a much wider applicability, so we broadly developed the calculus of structures and studied its many novel normalisation properties. The initial phase of development took place in Dresden, from 1999 to 2003; now, deep inference is developed in several laboratories around the world. The recent results on modal and intuitionistic logics, proof nets and semantics, and implementations, complete the establishing of deep inference as a solid and comprehensive methodology in proof theory.
2Frequently Asked Questions and Useful Remarks for Referees
Please do not hesitate to ask questions, either by email to me, or, even better, by using our mailing list.
 General
 What is deep inference?
 What is a structure?
 Isn't the word 'structure' reserved for semantics?
 Proof theory is famous for producing horrible proofs of its own theorems; are you doing any better?
 Does the calculus of structures automatically introduce a mix rule in any system?
 In proof search, the nondeterminism induced by deep inference is enormous, how can I cope with this?
 The good properties of the proofs in the calculus of structures are obtained by an extensive use of hidden equalities; are you cheating?
 Aren't proof nets topdown symmetric objects, not differently from proofs in the calculus of structures?
 The Calculus of Structures Vs. the Sequent Calculus
 Isn't the calculus of structures just a trivial notational variation of the sequent calculus?
 Can you do in the calculus of structures anything you can do in the sequent calculus?
 There is more bureaucracy in the calculus of structures than in the sequent calculus, and this is why you get more properties: simply because you have more stuff to work with, right?
 Cut Elimination and the Subformula Property
 You make a big deal of having the cut rule in atomic form; but can't you do the same in the sequent calculus?
 What's the point in proving again cut elimination for classical and linear logic?
 By the way, what's the point in dedicating an entire paper to such an easy statement as cut elimination for propositional classical logic in the calculus of structures?
 Your 'cutfree' systems do not have the subformula property! Are you crazy?
 Term Rewriting
 Isn't a system in the calculus of structures just a term rewriting system (modulo an equational theory)?
 If so, why not using the term rewriting terminology and conventions?
 But then what about rewriting logic?
 Philosophy
 Do the inference rules in the calculus of structures have an associated theory of meaning, like the inference rules in the sequent calculus and natural deduction?
3Papers
The following material is broad in scope; if you are new to deep inference and the calculus of structures, start here:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Nested Deduction in Logical Foundations for Computation
Nicolas Guenot
AbstractDans cette thèse, nous étudions différentes approches permettant de donner un contenu calculatoire à des systèmes logiques suivant le principe d'inférence profonde, qui généralisent les formalismes traditionnels (tels que la déduction naturelles et le calcul des séquents) en autorisant l'application de règles d'inférence à n'importe quelle position dans une formule. Tout d'abord, nous suivons l'approche de la correspondence de CurryHoward, en définissant des systèmes d'inférence profonde pour la logique intuitionniste, notamment dans le calcul des structures, et en décrivant une procédure de normalisation purement syntaxique. Ceci permet d'intépréter les preuves d'un tel système comme des lambdatermes et de connecter la normalisation à la réduction dans un lambdacalcul avec substitutions explicites. En particulier, nous étudions les extensions du lambdacalcul qui peuvent être obtenues en exploitant les particularités de nos systèmes logiques. Enfin, nous considérons la recherche de preuve comme calcul, en particulier à travers l'adaptation de la technique de focalisation (en logique linéaire) au calcul des structures, qui permet de réduire drastiquement le nondéterminisme de la construction de preuves. Nous montrons également comment la recherche de preuve en logique intuitionniste peut être reliée à la réduction dans le lambdacalcul avec substitutions explicites.
Pdf10 April 2013
PhD thesis, defended on 10 April 2013

Towards a Theory of Proofs of Classical Logic
Lutz Straßburger
Pdf3 December 2010
Habilitation thesis

A General View of Normalisation Through Atomic Flows
Tom Gundersen
AbstractAtomic flows are a geometric invariant of classical propositional proofs in deep inference. In this thesis we use atomic flows to describe new normal forms of proofs, of which the traditional normal forms are special cases, we also give several normalisation procedures for obtaining the normal forms. We define, and use to present our results, a new deepinference formalism called the functorial calculus, which is more flexible than the traditional calculus of structures. To our surprise we are able to 1) normalise proofs without looking at their logical connectives or logical rules; and 2) normalise proofs in less than exponential time.
Pdf12 August 2010
PhD thesis, defended on 10 November 2009
You can buy this book at Lambert Academic Publishing

Nested Sequents
Kai Brünnler
AbstractWe see how nested sequents, a natural generalisation of hypersequents, allow us to develop a systematic proof theory for modal logics. As opposed to other prominent formalisms, such as the display calculus and labelled sequents, nested sequents stay inside the modal language and allow for proof systems which enjoy the subformula property in the literal sense.
In the first part we study a systematic set of nested sequent systems for all normal modal logics formed by some combination of the axioms for seriality, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity and euclideanness. We establish soundness and completeness and some of their good properties, such as invertibility of all rules, admissibility of the structural rules, termination of proofsearch, as well as syntactic cutelimination.
In the second part we study the logic of common knowledge, a modal logic with a fixpoint modality. We look at two infinitary proof systems for this logic: an existing one based on ordinary sequents, for which no syntactic cutelimination procedure is known, and a new one based on nested sequents. We see how nested sequents, in contrast to ordinary sequents, allow for syntactic cutelimination and thus allow us to obtain an ordinal upper bound on the length of proofs.
Pdf13 April 2010
Habilitation thesis

Nondeterminism and Language Design in Deep Inference
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractThis thesis studies the design of deepinference deductive systems. In the systems with deep inference, in contrast to traditional prooftheoretic systems, inference rules can be applied at any depth inside logical expressions. Deep applicability of inference rules provides a rich combinatorial analysis of proofs. Deep inference also makes it possible to design deductive systems that are tailored for computer science applications and otherwise provably not expressible.
By applying the inference rules deeply, logical expressions can be manipulated starting from their subexpressions. This way, we can simulate analytic proofs in traditional deductive formalisms. Furthermore, we can also construct much shorter analytic proofs than in these other formalisms. However, deep applicability of inference rules causes much greater nondeterminism in proof construction.
This thesis attacks the problem of dealing with nondeterminism in proof search while preserving the shorter proofs that are available thanks to deep inference. By redesigning the deep inference deductive systems, some redundant applications of the inference rules are prevented. By introducing a new technique which reduces nondeterminism, it becomes possible to obtain a more immediate access to shorter proofs, without breaking certain proof theoretical properties such as cutelimination. Different implementations presented in this thesis allow to perform experiments on the techniques that we developed and observe the performance improvements. Within a computationasproofsearch perspective, we use deepinference deductive systems to develop a common prooftheoretic language to the two fields of planning and concurrency.
Pdf11 September 2006
PhD thesis, defended on 21 December 2006
You can buy this book at Lambert Academic Publishing

Categorical Models of First Order Classical Proofs
Richard McKinley
AbstractThis thesis introduces the notion of a classical doctrine: a semantics for proofs in firstorder classical logic derived from the classical categories of Führmann and Pym, using Lawvere’s notion of hyperdoctrine. We introduce a hierarchy of classes of model, increasing in the strength of cutreduction theory they model; the weakest captures cut reduction, and the strongest gives De Morgan duality between quantifiers as an isomorphism. Whereas classical categories admit the elimination of logical cuts as equalities, (and cuts against structural rules as inequalities), classical doctrines admit certain logical cuts as inequalities only. This is a result of the additive character of the quantifier introduction rules, as is illustrated by a concrete model based on families of sets and relations, using an abstract Geometry of Interaction construction.
We establish that each class of models is sound and complete with respect to the relevant cutreduction theory on proof nets based on those of Robinson for propositional classical logic. We show also that classical categories and classical doctrines are not only a class of models for the sequent calculus, but also for deep inference calculi due to Brünnler for classical logic. Of particular interest are the local systems for classical logic, which we show are modelled by categorical models with an additional axiom forcing monoidality of certain functors; these categorical models correspond to multiplicative presentations of the sequent calculus with additional additive features.
Pdf30 March 2006
PhD thesis, defended on 17.3.2006

Deep Inference and Its Normal Form of Derivations
Kai Brünnler
AbstractWe see a notion of normal derivation for the calculus of structures, which is based on a factorisation of derivations and which is more general than the traditional notion of cutfree proof in this formalism.
Pdf29 March 2006
CiE 2006, LNCS 3988, pp. 65–74

Deep Inference and Symmetry in Classical Proofs
Kai Brünnler
AbstractIn this thesis we see deductive systems for classical propositional and predicate logic which use deep inference, i.e. inference rules apply arbitrarily deep inside formulas, and a certain symmetry, which provides an involution on derivations. Like sequent systems, they have a cut rule which is admissible. Unlike sequent systems, they enjoy various new interesting properties. Not only the identity axiom, but also cut, weakening and even contraction are reducible to atomic form. This leads to inference rules that are local, meaning that the effort of applying them is bounded, and finitary, meaning that, given a conclusion, there is only a finite number of premises to choose from. The systems also enjoy new normal forms for derivations and, in the propositional case, a cut elimination procedure that is drastically simpler than the ones for sequent systems.
PdfFebruary 2004
PhD thesis, defended on 22 September 2003, published by Logos Verlag
You can buy this book at LogosVerlag and at Amazon

Linear Logic and Noncommutativity in the Calculus of Structures
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn this thesis I study several deductive systems for linear logic, its fragments, and some noncommutative extensions. All systems will be designed within the calculus of structures, which is a proof theoretical formalism for specifying logical systems, in the tradition of Hilbert's formalism, natural deduction, and the sequent calculus. Systems in the calculus of structures are based on two simple principles: deep inference and topdown symmetry. Together they have remarkable consequences for the properties of the logical systems. For example, for linear logic it is possible to design a deductive system, in which all rules are local. In particular, the contraction rule is reduced to an atomic version, and there is no global promotion rule. I will also show an extension of multiplicative exponential linear logic by a noncommutative, selfdual connective which is not representable in the sequent calculus. All systems enjoy the cut elimination property. Moreover, this can be proved independently from the sequent calculus via techniques that are based on the new topdown symmetry. Furthermore, for all systems, I will present several decomposition theorems which constitute a new type of normal form for derivations.
PdfPdf in booklet format25 July 2003
PhD thesis, defended on 24 July 2003
In the rest of the section, all the papers I know of are listed according to their subject, in no particular order.
3.1Classical and Intuitionistic Logic
So far, for classical logic in the calculus of structures we achieved:
 the cut rule trivially reduces to atomic form;
 one can show cut elimination for the propositional fragment by the simplest cut elimination argument to date;
 the propositional fragment is fully local, including contraction;
 first order classical logic can be entirely made finitary;
 cut elimination and decomposition theorems are proved;
 a typed lambdacalculus with explicit sharing can be obtained via a CurryHoward interpretation of deep inference.
We can present intuitionistic logic in the calculus of structures with a fully local, cutfree system. The logic of bunched implications BI can be presented in the calculus of structures. Japaridze's cirquent calculus benefits from a deepinference presentation, in particular in the case of propositional logic.
The following papers exist, in addition to Deep Inference and Its Normal Form of Derivations and Deep Inference and Symmetry in Classical Proofs, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Symmetric Normalisation for Intuitionistic Logic
Nicolas Guenot and Lutz Straßburger
Abstract[Currently unavailable]
26 April 2014
Accepted at CSLLICS 2014

A Proof of Strong Normalisation of the Typed Atomic LambdaCalculus
Tom Gundersen, Willem Heijltjes and Michel Parigot
AbstractThe atomic lambdacalculus is a typed lambdacalculus with explicit sharing, which originates in a CurryHoward interpretation of a deepinference system for intuitionistic logic. It has been shown that it allows fully lazy sharing to be reproduced in a typed setting. In this paper we prove strong normalization of the typed atomic lambdacalculus using Tait’s reducibility method.
Pdf10 October 2013
LPAR19, LNCS 8312, pp. 340–354

Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed LambdaCalculus with Explicit Sharing
Tom Gundersen, Willem Heijltjes and Michel Parigot
AbstractAn explicit–sharing lambdacalculus is presented, based on a Curry–Howardstyle interpretation of the deep inference proof formalism. Duplication of subterms during reduction proceeds ‘atomically’, i.e. on individual constructors, similar to optimal graph reduction in the style of Lamping. The calculus preserves strong normalisation with respect to the lambdacalculus, and achieves fully lazy sharing.
Pdf21 May 2013
LICS 2013 Proceedings (IEEE), pp. 311–320

Nested Proof Search as Reduction in the λcalculus
Nicolas Guenot
AbstractWe present here a proof system called JS for purely implicative intuitionistic logic at the propositional level in the formalism of the calculus of structures, which is a generalisation of the sequent calculus implementing the deep inference methodology. We show that this system is sound and complete with respect to the usual sequent calculus LJ, and consider a restricted system JLSd for a restricted class of formulas. Moreover, we show how to encode λterms with explicit substitutions inside formulas of JLSd and prove that there is a correspondence between proof search in JLSd and reduction in a λcalculus with explicit substitutions. Finally, we present a restriction JLSn of JLSd which allows to establish the same correspondence with the standard λcalculus equipped with βreduction, and show that we can prove results on the reductions of our λcalculus with explicit substitutions, as well as the correspondence between the standard βreduction and explicit substitutions, by proving results on derivations in the JLSd and JLSn systems.
Pdf12 May 2011
PPDP 2011, ACM, pp. 183–193

Breaking Paths in Atomic Flows for Classical Logic
Alessio Guglielmi, Tom Gundersen and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThis work belongs to a wider effort aimed at eliminating syntactic bureaucracy from proof systems. In this paper, we present a novel cut elimination procedure for classical propositional logic. It is based on the recently introduced atomic flows: they are purely graphical devices that abstract away from much of the typical bureaucracy of proofs. We make crucial use of the path breaker, an atomicflow construction that avoids some nasty termination problems, and that can be used in any proof system with sufficient symmetry. This paper contains an original 2dimensionaldiagram exposition of atomic flows, which helps us to connect atomic flows with other known formalisms.
Pdf29 April 2010
LICS 2010 Proceedings (IEEE), pp. 284–293

An Algorithmic Interpretation of a Deep Inference System
Kai Brünnler and Richard McKinley
AbstractWe set out to find something that corresponds to deep inference in the same way that the lambdacalculus corresponds to natural deduction. Starting from natural deduction for the conjunctionimplication fragment of intuitionistic logic we design a corresponding deep inference system together with reduction rules on proofs that allow a finegrained simulation of betareduction.
Pdf22 September 2008
LPAR 08, LNCS 5330, pp. 482–496

Cirquent Calculus Deepened
Giorgi Japaridze
AbstractCirquent calculus is a new prooftheoretic and semantic framework, whose main distinguishing feature is being based on circuitstyle structures (called cirquents), as opposed to the more traditional approaches that deal with treelike objects such as formulas, sequents or hypersequents. Among its advantages are greater efficiency, flexibility and expressiveness. This paper presents a detailed elaboration of a deepinference cirquent logic, which is naturally and inherently resource conscious. It shows that classical logic, both syntactically and semantically, can be seen to be just a special, conservative fragment of this more general and, in a sense, more basic logic — the logic of resources in the form of cirquent calculus. The reader will find various arguments in favor of switching to the new framework, such as arguments showing the insufficiency of the expressive power of linear logic or other formulabased approaches to developing resource logics, exponential improvements over the traditional approaches in both representational and proof complexities offered by cirquent calculus (including the existence of polynomial size cut, substitution and extensionfree cirquent calculus proofs for the notoriously hard pigeonhole principle), and more. Among the main purposes of this paper is to provide an introductorystyle starting point for what, as the author wishes to hope, might have a chance to become a new line of research in proof theory — a proof theory based on circuits instead of formulas.
Pdf1 April 2008
Journal of Logic and Computation, 18 (6) 2008, pp. 983–1028

Normalisation Control in Deep Inference via Atomic Flows
Alessio Guglielmi and Tom Gundersen
AbstractWe introduce 'atomic flows': they are graphs obtained from derivations by tracing atom occurrences and forgetting the logical structure. We study simple manipulations of atomic flows that correspond to complex reductions on derivations. This allows us to prove, for propositional logic, a new and very general normalisation theorem, which contains cut elimination as a special case. We operate in deep inference, which is more general than other syntactic paradigms, and where normalisation is more difficult to control. We argue that atomic flows are a significant technical advance for normalisation theory, because 1) the technique they support is largely independent of syntax; 2) indeed, it is largely independent of logical inference rules; 3) they constitute a powerful geometric formalism, which is more intuitive than syntax.
Journal page (pdf/postscript)31 March 2008
Logical Methods in Computer Science 4 (1:9) 2008, pp. 1–36

The Logic of Bunched Implications: A Memoir
Benjamin Robert Horsfall
AbstractThis is a study of the semantics and proof theory of the logic of bunched implications (BI), which is promoted as a logic of (computational) resources, and is a foundational component of separation logic, an approach to program analysis. BI combines an additive, or intuitionistic, fragment with a multiplicative fragment. The additive fragment has full use of the structural rules of weakening and contraction, and the multiplicative fragment has none. Thus it contains two conjunctive and two implicative connectives. At various points, we illustrate a resource view of BI based upon the Kripke resource semantics. Our first original contribution is the formulation of a proof system for BI in the newly developed prooftheoretical formalism of the calculus of structures. The calculus of structures is distinguished by its employment of deep inference, but we already see deep inference in a limited form in the established proof theory for BI. We show that our system is sound with respect to the elementary Kripke resource semantics for BI, and complete with respect to the partiallydefined monoid (PDM) semantics. Our second contribution is the development from a semantic standpoint of preliminary ideas for a hybrid logic of bunched implications (HBI). We give a Kripke semantics for HBI in which nominal propositional atoms can be seen as names for resources, rather than as names for locations, as is the case with related proposals for BILoc and for intuitionistic hybrid logic. The cost of this approach is the loss of intuitionistic monotonicity in the semantics. But this is perhaps not such a grave loss, given that our guiding analogy is of states of models with resources, rather than with states of knowledge, as is standard for intuitionistic logic.
PdfJune 2007
MSc thesis, successfully defended in August 2007

A Characterisation of Medial as Rewriting Rule
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractMedial is an inference rule scheme that appears in various deductive systems based on deep inference. In this paper we investigate the properties of medial as rewriting rule independently from logic. We present a graph theoretical criterion for checking whether there exists a medial rewriting path between two formulas. Finally, we return to logic and apply our criterion for giving a combinatorial proof for a decomposition theorem, i.e., proof theoretical statement about syntax.
Pdf13 April 2007
RTA 2007, LNCS 4533, pp. 344–358

A Local System for Intuitionistic Logic
Alwen Tiu
AbstractThis paper presents systems for firstorder intuitionistic logic and several of its extensions in which all the propositional rules are local, in the sense that, in applying the rules of the system, one needs only a fixed amount of information about the logical expressions involved. The main source of nonlocality is the contraction rules. We show that the contraction rules can be restricted to the atomic ones, provided we employ deepinference, i.e., to allow rules to apply anywhere inside logical expressions. We further show that the use of deep inference allows for modular extensions of intuitionistic logic to Dummett's intermediate logic LC, Gödel logic and classical logic. We present the systems in the calculus of structures, a proof theoretic formalism which supports deepinference. Cut elimination for these systems are proved indirectly by simulating the cutfree sequent systems, or the hypersequent systems in the cases of Dummett's LC and Gödel logic, in the cut free systems in the calculus of structures.

Locality for Classical Logic
Kai Brünnler
AbstractIn this paper we will see deductive systems for classical propositional and predicate logic in the calculus of structures. Like sequent systems, they have a cut rule which is admissible. Unlike sequent systems, they drop the restriction that rules only apply to the main connective of a formula: their rules apply anywhere deeply inside a formula. This allows to observe very clearly the symmetry between identity axiom and the cut rule. This symmetry allows to reduce the cut rule to atomic form in a way which is dual to reducing the identity axiom to atomic form. We also reduce weakening and even contraction to atomic form. This leads to inference rules that are local: they do not require the inspection of expressions of arbitrary size.
Pdf10 March 2006
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 47 (4), pp. 557–580, 2006
Review by Sara Negri
Note about the review: All the concerns of the reviewer are addressed in the paper Two Restrictions on Contraction (which is among the references of the reviewed paper).

Cut Elimination Inside a Deep Inference System for Classical Predicate Logic
Kai Brünnler
AbstractDeep inference is a natural generalisation of the onesided sequent calculus where rules are allowed to apply deeply inside formulas, much like rewrite rules in term rewriting. This freedom in applying inference rules allows to express logical systems that are difficult or impossible to express in the cutfree sequent calculus and it also allows for a more finegrained analysis of derivations than the sequent calculus. However, the same freedom also makes it harder to carry out this analysis, in particular it is harder to design cut elimination procedures. In this paper we see a cut elimination procedure for a deep inference system for classical predicate logic. As a consequence we derive Herbrand's Theorem, which we express as a factorisation of derivations.
Pdf9 March 2005
Studia Logica 82 (1), pp. 51–71, 2006

A First Order System with Finite Choice of Premises
Kai Brünnler and Alessio Guglielmi
AbstractWe present an inference system for classical first order logic in which each inference rule, including the cut, only has a finite set of premises to choose from. The main conceptual contribution of this paper is the possibility of separating different sources of infinite choice, which happen to be entangled in the traditional cut rule.
Pdf1 December 2003
Presented at First Order Logic 75 under the title A Finitary System for First Order Logic; appeared in Hendricks et al., editor, FirstOrder Logic Revisited, Logos Verlag, Berlin, 2004, pp. 59–74

Two Restrictions on Contraction
Kai Brünnler
AbstractI show two simple limitations of sequent systems with multiplicative context treatment: contraction can neither be restricted to atoms nor to the bottom of a proof tree.
Pdf24 November 2003
Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 11 (5), pp. 525–529

Consistency Without Cut Elimination
Kai Brünnler and Alessio Guglielmi
AbstractWe show how to get consistency for first order classical logic, in a purely syntactic way, without going through cut elimination. The procedure is very simple and it also shows how finitariness is actually a triviality (contrarily to what one would guess from textbooks).
Pdf10 September 2003It is contained in A First Order System with Finite Choice of Premises

Atomic Cut Elimination for Classical Logic
Kai Brünnler
AbstractSystem SKS is a set of rules for classical propositional logic presented in the calculus of structures. Like sequent systems and unlike natural deduction systems, it has an explicit cut rule, which is admissible. In contrast to sequent systems, the cut rule can easily be restricted to atoms. This allows for a very simple cut elimination procedure based on plugging in parts of a proof, like normalisation in natural deduction and unlike cut elimination in the sequent calculus. It should thus be a good common starting point for investigations into both proof search as computation and proof normalisation as computation.
Pdf10 April 2003
CSL 2003, LNCS 2803, pp. 86–97

A Local System for Classical Logic
Kai Brünnler and Alwen Fernanto Tiu
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a framework for specifying logical systems, which is similar to the onesided sequent calculus but more general. We present a system of inference rules for propositional classical logic in this new framework and prove cut elimination for it. The system also enjoys a decomposition theorem for derivations that is not available in the sequent calculus. The main novelty of our system is that all the rules are local: contraction, in particular, is reduced to atomic form. This should be interesting for distributed proofsearch and also for complexity theory, since the computational cost of applying each rule is bounded.
Pdf2 October 2001Now replaced by Locality for Classical Logic
LPAR 2001, LNCS 2250, pp. 347–361
3.2Proof Complexity
The basic proof complexity properties of propositional logic in the calculus of structures are known. Deep inference is as powerful as Frege systems, and more powerful than Gentzen systems, in the restriction to analytic systems.
The following papers exist:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Quasipolynomial Normalisation in Deep Inference via Atomic Flows and Threshold Formulae
Paola Bruscoli, Alessio Guglielmi, Tom Gundersen and Michel Parigot
AbstractJeřábek showed that cuts in propositionallogic deepinference proofs can be eliminated in quasipolynomial time. The proof is indirect and it relies on a result of Atserias, Galesi and Pudlák about monotone sequent calculus and a correspondence between that system and cutfree deepinference proofs. In this paper we give a direct proof of Jeřábek's result: we give a quasipolynomialtime cutelimination procedure in propositionallogic deep inference. The main new ingredient is the use of a computational trace of deepinference proofs called atomic flows, which are both very simple (they only trace structural rules and forget logical rules) and strong enough to faithfully represent the cutelimination procedure.

On the Pigeonhole and Related Principles in Deep Inference and Monotone Systems
Anupam Das
AbstractWe construct quasipolynomialsize proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle in the deep inference system KS, addressing an open problem raised in previous works and matching the best known upper bound for the more general class of monotone proofs.
We make significant use of monotone formulae computing boolean threshold functions, an idea previously considered in works of Atserias et al. The main construction, monotone proofs witnessing the symmetry of such functions, involves an implementation of mergesort in the design of proofs in order to tame the structural behaviour of atoms, and so the complexity of normalization. Proof transformations from previous work on atomic flows are then employed to yield appropriate KS proofs.
As further results we show that our constructions can be applied to provide quasipolynomialsize KS proofs of the parity principle and the generalized pigeonhole principle. These bounds are inherited for the class of monotone proofs, and we are further able to construct n^{O(log log n)}size monotone proofs of the weak pigeonhole principle, thereby also improving the best known bounds for monotone proofs.
12 April 2014
Accepted at CSLLICS 2014

On the Power of Substitution in the Calculus of Structures
Novak Novaković and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn this paper we give a direct and simple proof of the known fact that Frege systems with substitution can be psimulated by the calculus of structures extended with the substitution rule. This is done without referring to extended Frege systems. In the second part of the paper, we then show that the cutfree calculus of structures with substitution is pequivalent to the cutfree calculus of structures with extension.
Pdf8 November 2013
Submitted

Rewriting with Linear Inferences in Propositional Logic
Anupam Das
AbstractLinear inferences are sound implications of propositional logic where each variable appears exactly once in the premiss and conclusion. We consider a specific set of these inferences, MS, first studied by Straßburger, corresponding to the logical rules in deep inference proof theory. Despite previous results characterising the individual rules of MS, we show that there is no polynomialtime characterisation of MS, assuming that integers cannot be factorised in polynomial time.
We also examine the length of rewrite paths in MS, utilising a notion of trivialisation to reduce the case with units to the case without, amongst other observations on MSrewriting and the set of linear inferences in general.
Pdf15 February 2013
RTA 2013, LIPIcs 21, pp. 158–173

Extension without Cut
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn proof theory one distinguishes sequent proofs with cut and cutfree sequent proofs, while for proof complexity one distinguishes Fregesystems and extended Fregesystems. In this paper we show how deep inference can provide a uniform treatment for both classifications, such that we can define cutfree systems with extension, which is neither possible with Fregesystems, nor with the sequent calculus. We show that the propositional pigeonhole principle admits polynomialsize proofs in a cutfree system with extension. We also define cutfree systems with substitution and show that the system with extension psimulates the system with substitution.
Pdf31 July 2012
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(12) 2012, pp. 1995–2007

Some Results on the Relative Proof Complexity of Deep Inference Via Atomic Flows
Anupam Das
AbstractWe consider the proof complexity of the minimal complete fragment of standard deep inference, denoted KS. To examine the size of proofs we employ atomic flows, diagrams that trace structural changes through a proof but ignore logical information. As results we obtain a polynomial simulation of daglike cutfree Gentzen and Resolution, along with some extensions. We also show that these systems, as well as boundeddepth Frege systems, cannot polynomially simulate KS, by giving polynomialsize proofs of certain variants of the propositional pigeonhole principle in KS.

On the Proof Complexity of CutFree Bounded Deep Inference
Anupam Das
AbstractIt has recently been shown that cutfree deep inference systems exhibit an exponential speedup over cutfree sequent systems, in terms of proof size. While this is good for proof complexity, there remains the problem of typically high proof search nondeterminism induced by the deep inference methodology: the higher the depth of inference, the higher the nondeterminism. In this work we improve on the proof search side by demonstrating that, for propositional logic, the same exponential speedup in proof size can be obtained in boundeddepth cutfree systems. These systems retain the topdown symmetry of deep inference, but can otherwise be designed at the same depth level of sequent systems. As a result, the nondeterminism arising from the choice of rules at each stage of a proof is smaller than that of unbounded deep inference, while still giving access to the short proofs of deep inference.
Pdf25 April 2011
Tableaux 2011, LNCS 6793, pp. 134–148

On the Proof Complexity of Deep Inference
Paola Bruscoli and Alessio Guglielmi
AbstractWe obtain two results about the proof complexity of deep inference: 1) deepinference proof systems are as powerful as Frege ones, even when both are extended with the Tseitin extension rule or with the substitution rule; 2) there are analytic deepinference proof systems that exhibit an exponential speedup over analytic Gentzen proof systems that they polynomially simulate.
Pdf19 April 2009
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10 (2:14) 2009, pp. 1–34

Proof complexity of the CutFree Calculus of Structures
Emil Jeřábek
AbstractWe investigate the proof complexity of analytic subsystems of the deep inference proof system SKSg (the calculus of structures). Exploiting the fact that the cut rule (i↑) of SKSg corresponds to the ¬left rule in the sequent calculus, we establish that the “analytic” system KSg + c↑ has essentially the same complexity as the monotone Gentzen calculus MLK. In particular, KSg + c↑ quasipolynomially simulates SKSg, and admits polynomialsize proofs of some variants of the pigeonhole principle.
Pdf30 April 2008
Journal of Logic and Computation 19 (2) 2009, pp. 323–339, 2009
3.3Nested Sequents
A new formalism called 'nested sequents' has been defined, which is especially suitable to modal logics.
The following papers exist, in addition to Nested Sequents, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Labelfree Modular Systems for Classical and Intuitionistic Modal Logics
Sonia Marin and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn this paper we show for each of the modal axioms d, t, b, 4, and 5 an equivalent set of inference rules in a nested sequent system, such that, when added to the basic system for the modal logic K, the resulting system admits cut elimination. Then we show the same result also for intuitionistic modal logic. We achieve this by combining structural and logical rules.
Pdf9 April 2014
Accepted by Advances in Modal Logic 2014

AnnotationFree Sequent Calculi for Full Intuitionistic Linear Logic
Ranald Clouston, Jeremy Dawson, Rajeev Goré and Alwen Tiu
AbstractFull Intuitionistic Linear Logic (FILL) is multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic extended with par. Its proof theory has been notoriously difficult to get right, and existing sequent calculi all involve inference rules with complex annotations to guarantee soundness and cutelimination. We give a simple and annotationfree display calculus for FILL which satisfies Belnap’s generic cutelimination theorem. To do so, our display calculus actually handles an extension of FILL, called BiIntuitionistic Linear Logic (BiILL), with an ‘exclusion’ connective defined via an adjunction with par. We refine our display calculus for BiILL into a cutfree nested sequent calculus with deep inference in which the explicit structural rules of the display calculus become admissible. A separation property guarantees that proofs of FILL formulae in the deep inference calculus contain no trace of exclusion. Each such rule is sound for the semantics of FILL, thus our deep inference calculus and display calculus are conservative over FILL. The deep inference calculus also enjoys the subformula property and terminating backward proof search, which gives the NPcompleteness of BiILL and FILL.
Pdf8 July 2013
CSL 2013, LIPIcs 23, pp. 197–214

Nested Sequent Calculi for Normal Conditional Logics
Régis Alenda, Nicola Olivetti and Gian Luca Pozzato
AbstractNested sequent calculi are a useful generalization of ordinary sequent calculi, where sequents are allowed to occur within sequents. Nested sequent calculi have been profitably used in the area of (multi)modal logic to obtain analytic and modular proof systems for these logics. In this work, we extend the realm of nested sequents by providing nested sequent calculi for the basic conditional logic CK and some of its significant extensions. We provide also a calculus for Kraus Lehman Magidor cumulative logic C. The calculi are internal (a sequent can be directly translated into a formula), cutfree and analytic. Moreover, they can be used to design (sometimes optimal) decision procedures for the respective logics, and to obtain complexity upper bounds. Our calculi are an argument in favour of nested sequent calculi for modal logics and alike, showing their versatility and power.
Pdf1 June 2013
To appear on Journal of Logic and Computation

Algebra, Proof Theory and Applications for an Intuitionistic Logic of Propositions, Actions and Adjoint Modal Operators
Roy Dyckhoff, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh and Julien Truffaut
AbstractWe develop a cutfree nested sequent calculus as basis for a proof search procedure for an intuitionistic modal logic of actions and propositions. The actions act on propositions via a dynamic modality (the weakest precondition of program logics), whose left adjoint we refer to as “update” (the strongest postcondition). The logic has agentindexed adjoint pairs of epistemic modalities: the left adjoints encode agents’ uncertainties and the right adjoints encode their beliefs. The rules for the “update” modality encode learning as a result of discarding uncertainty. We prove admissibility of Cut, and hence the soundness and completeness of the logic with respect to an algebraic semantics. We interpret the logic on epistemic scenarios that consist of honest and dishonest communication actions, add assumption rules to encode them, and prove that the calculus with the assumption rules still has the admissibility results. We apply the calculus to encode (and allow reasoning about) the classic epistemic puzzles of dirty children (a.k.a. “muddy children”) and drinking logicians and some versions with dishonesty or noise; we also give an application where the actions are movements of a robot rather than announcements.
Pdf31 May 2013
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 14 (4:34) 2013, pp. 1–37

Cut Elimination in Nested Sequents for Intuitionistic Modal Logics
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe present cutfree deductive systems without labels for the intuitionistic variants of the modal logics obtained by extending IK with a subset of the axioms d, t, b, 4, and 5. For this, we use the formalism of nested sequents, which allows us to give a uniform cut elimination argument for all 15 logic in the intuitionistic S5 cube.
Pdf7 January 2013
FoSSaCS 2013, LNCS 7794, pp. 209–224

Labelled Tree sequents, Tree Hypersequents and Nested (Deep) Sequents
Rajeev Goré and Revantha Ramanayake
AbstractWe identify a subclass of labelled sequents called "labelled tree sequents" and show that these are notational variants of treehypersequents in the sense that a sequent of one type can be represented naturally as a sequent of the other type. This relationship can be extended to nested (deep) sequents using the relationship between treehypersequents and nested (deep) sequents, which we also show. We apply this result to transfer prooftheoretic results such as syntactic cutadmissibility between the treehypersequent calculus CSGL and the labelled sequent calculus G3GL for provability logic GL. This answers in full a question posed by Poggiolesi about the exact relationship between these calculi. Our results pave the way to obtain cutfree treehypersequent and nested (deep) sequent calculi for large classes of logics using the known calculi for labelled sequents, and also to obtain a large class of labelled sequent calculi for biintuitionistic tense logics from the known nested (deep) sequent calculi for these logics. Importing prooftheoretic results between notational variant systems in this manner alleviates the need for independent proofs in each system. Identifying which labelled systems can be rewritten as labelled tree sequent systems may provide a method for determining the expressive limits of the nested sequent formalism.
Pdf5 October 2012
Advances in Modal Logic 2012, pp. 279–299

Nested Sequent Calculi for Conditional Logics
Régis Alenda, Nicola Olivetti and Gian Luca Pozzato
AbstractNested sequent calculi are a useful generalization of ordinary sequent calculi, where sequents are allowed to occur within sequents. Nested sequent calculi have been profitably employed in the area of (multi)modal logic to obtain analytic and modular proof systems for these logics. In this work, we extend the realm of nested sequents by providing nested sequent calculi for the basic conditional logic CK and some of its significant extensions. The calculi are internal (a sequent can be directly translated into a formula), cutfree and analytic. Moreover, they can be used to design (sometimes optimal) decision procedures for the respective logics, and to obtain complexity upper bounds. Our calculi are an argument in favour of nested sequent calculi for modal logics and alike, showing their versatility and power.
Pdf16 July 2012
JELIA 2012, LNCS 7519, pp. 14–27

Nested Sequents for Intuitionistic Logics
Melvin Fitting
AbstractNested sequent systems for modal logics were introduced by Kai Brünnler, and have come to be seen as an attractive deep reasoning extension of familiar sequent calculi. In an earlier paper I showed there was a connection between modal nested sequents and modal prefixed tableaus. In this paper I extend the nested sequent machinery to intuitionistic logic, both standard and constant domain, and relate the resulting sequent calculi to intuitionistic prefixed tableaus. Modal nested sequent machinery generalizes one sided sequent calculi—the present work similarly generalizes two sided sequents. It is noteworthy that the resulting system for constant domain intuitionistic logic is particularly simple. It amounts to a combination of intuitionistic propositional rules and classical quantifier rules, a combination that is known to be inadequate when conventional intuitionistic sequent systems are used.
Pdf8 July 2012
Submitted

Grammar Logics in Nested Sequent Calculus: Proof Theory and Decision Procedures
Alwen Tiu and Egor Ianovski and Rajeev Goré
AbstractA grammar logic refers to an extension of the multimodal logic K in which the modal axioms are generated from a formal grammar. We consider a proof theory, in nested sequent calculus, of grammar logics with converse, i.e., every modal operator [a] comes with a converse [ā]: Extending previous works on nested sequent systems for tense logics, we show all grammar logics (with or without converse) can be formalised in nested sequent calculi, where the axioms are internalised in the calculi as structural rules. Syntactic cutelimination for these calculi is proved using a procedure similar to that for display logics. If the grammar is contextfree, then one can get rid of all structural rules, in favor of deep inference and additional propagation rules. We give a novel semidecision procedure for contextfree grammar logics, using nested sequent calculus with deep inference, and show that, in the case where the given contextfree grammar is regular, this procedure terminates. Unlike all other existing decision procedures for regular grammar logics in the literature, our procedure does not assume that a finite state automaton encoding the axioms is given.
Pdf15 June 2012
Advances in Modal Logic 2012, pp. 516–537

Syntactic CutElimination for a Fragment of the Modal MuCalculus
Kai Brünnler and Thomas Studer
AbstractFor some modal fixed point logics, there are deductive systems that enjoy syntactic cut elimination. An early example is the system in Pliuskevicius (1991) [15] for LTL. More recent examples are the systems by the authors of this paper for the logic of common knowledge (Brünnler and Studer, 2009) [5] and by Hill and Poggiolesi (2010) for PDL [8], which are based on a form of deep inference. These logics can be seen as fragments of the modal mucalculus. Here we are interested in how far this approach can be pushed in general. To this end, we introduce a nested sequent system with syntactic cutelimination which is incomplete for the modal mucalculus, but complete with respect to a restricted language that allows only fixed points of a certain form. This restricted language includes the logic of common knowledge and PDL. There is also a traditional sequent system for the modal mucalculus by Jäger et al. (2008) [9], without a syntactic cutelimination procedure. We embed that system into ours and vice versa, thus establishing cutelimination also for the shallow system, when only the restricted language is considered.
Pdf14 May 2012
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(12), pp. 1838–1853, 2012

Proving Completeness for Nested Sequent Calculi
Melvin Fitting
AbstractProving the completeness of classical propositional logic by using maximal consistent sets is perhaps the most common method there is, going back to Lindenbaum (though not actually published by him). It has been extended to a variety of logical formalisms, sometimes combined with the addition of Henkin constants to handle quantifiers. Recently a deepreasoning formalism called nested sequents has been introduced by Kai Brünnler, able to handle a larger variety of modal logics than are possible with standard Gentzentype sequent calculi. In this paper we sketch how yet another variation on the maximality method of Lindenbaum allows one to prove completeness for nested sequent calculi. It is certainly not the only method available, but it should be entered into the record as one more useful tool available to the logician.
Pdf4 October 2011
Logic without Frontiers, College Publications, pp. 145–154, 2011

Prefixed Tableaus and Nested Sequents
Melvin Fitting
AbstractNested sequent systems for modal logics are a relatively recent development, within the general area known as deep reasoning. The idea of deep reasoning is to create systems within which one operates at lower levels in formulas than just those involving the main connective or operator. Prefixed tableaus go back to 1972, and are modal tableau systems with extra machinery to represent accessibility in a purely syntactic way. We show that modal nested sequents and prefixed modal tableaus are notational variants of each other, roughly in the same way that Gentzen sequent calculi and tableaus are notational variants. This immediately gives rise to new modal nested sequent systems which may be of independent interest. We discuss some of these, including those for some justification logics that include standard modal operators.
Pdf14 September 2011
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(3), pp. 291–313, 2012

On the Correspondence Between Display Postulates and Deep Inference in Nested Sequent Calculi for Tense Logics
Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece and Alwen Tiu
AbstractWe consider two styles of proof calculi for a family of tense logics, presented in a formalism based on nested sequents. A nested sequent can be seen as a tree of traditional singlesided sequents. Our first style of calculi is what we call “shallow calculi”, where inference rules are only applied at the root node in a nested sequent. Our shallow calculi are extensions of Kashima’s calculus for tense logic and share an essential characteristic with display calculi, namely, the presence of structural rules called “display postulates”. Shallow calculi enjoy a simple cut elimination procedure, but are unsuitable for proof search due to the presence of display postulates and other structural rules. The second style of calculi uses deepinference, whereby inference rules can be applied at any node in a nested sequent. We show that, for a range of extensions of tense logic, the two styles of calculi are equivalent, and there is a natural proof theoretic correspondence between display postulates and deep inference. The deep inference calculi enjoy the subformula property and have no display postulates or other structural rules, making them a better framework for proof search.

Proof Theory and Proof Search of BiIntuitionistic and Tense Logic
Linda Postniece
AbstractIn this thesis, we consider biintuitionistic logic and tense logic, as well as the combined biintuitionistic tense logic. Each of these logics contains a pair of dual connectives, for example, Rauszer's biintuitionistic logic contains intuitionistic implication and dual intuitionistic exclusion. The interaction between these dual connectives makes it nontrivial to develop a cutfree sequent calculus for these logics.
In the first part of this thesis we develop a new extended sequent calculus for biintuitionistic logic using a framework of derivations and refutations. This is the first purely syntactic cutfree sequent calculus for biintuitionistic logic and thus solves an open problem. Our calculus is sound, semantically complete and allows terminating backward proof search, hence giving rise to a decision procedure for biintuitionistic logic.
In the second part of this thesis we consider the broader problem of taming proof search in display calculi, using biintuitionistic logic and tense logic as case studies. While the generality of display calculi makes it an excellent framework for designing sequent calculi for logics where traditional sequent calculi fail, this generality also leads to a large degree of nondeterminism, which is problematic for backward proofsearch. We control this nondeterminism in two ways:
1. First, we limit the structural connectives used in the calculi and consequently, the number of display postulates. Specifically, we work with nested structures which can be viewed as a tree of traditional Gentzen's sequents, called nested sequents, which have been used previously by Kashima and, independently, by Brünnler and Straßburger and Poggiolesi to present several modal and tense logics.
2. Second, since residuation rules are largely responsible for the difficulty in finding a proof search procedure for displaylike calculi, we show how to eliminate these residuation rules using deep inference in nested sequents.
Finally, we study the combined biintuitionistic tense logic, which contains the wellknown intuitionistic modal logic as a sublogic. We give a nested sequent calculus for biintuitionistic tense logic that has cutelimination, and a derived deep inference nested sequent calculus that is complete with respect to the first calculus and where contraction and residuation rules are admissible. We also show how our calculi can capture Simpson's intuitionistic modal logic and Ewald's intuitionistic tense logic.
Pdf21 November 2010
PhD thesis, defended on March 2011

How to Universally Close the Existential Rule
Kai Brünnler
AbstractThis paper introduces a nested sequent system for predicate logic. The system features a structural universal quantifier and a universally closed existential rule. One nice consequence of this is that proofs of sentences cannot contain free variables. Another nice consequence is that the assumption of a nonempty domain is isolated in a single inference rule. This rule can be removed or added at will, leading to a system for free logic or classical predicate logic, respectively. The system for free logic is interesting because it has no need for an existence predicate. We see syntactic cutelimination and completeness results for these two systems as well as two standard applications: Herbrand ?s Theorem and interpolation.
Pdf (long version)31 July 2010
LPAR17, LNCS 6397, pp. 172–186

CutElimination and Proof Search for BiIntuitionistic Tense Logic
Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece and Alwen Tiu
AbstractWe consider an extension of biintuitionistic logic with the traditional modalities from tense logic Kt. Proof theoretically, this extension is obtained simply by extending an existing sequent calculus for biintuitionistic logic with typical inference rules for the modalities used in display logics. As it turns out, the resulting calculus, LBiKt, seems to be more basic than most intuitionistic tense or modal logics considered in the literature, in particular, those studied by Ewald and Simpson, as it does not assume any a priori relationship between the diamond and the box modal operators. We recover Ewald's intuitionistic tense logic and Simpson's intuitionistic modal logic by modularly extending LBiKt with additional structural rules. The calculus LBiKt is formulated in a variant of display calculus, using a form of sequents called nested sequents. Cut elimination is proved for LBiKt, using a technique similar to that used in display calculi. As in display calculi, the inference rules of LBiKt are ''shallow'' rules, in the sense that they act on toplevel formulae in a nested sequent. The calculus LBiKt is illsuited for backward proof search due to the presence of certain structural rules called ''display postulates'' and the contraction rules on arbitrary structures. We show that these structural rules can be made redundant in another calculus, DBiKt, which uses deep inference, allowing one to apply inference rules at an arbitrary depth in a nested sequent. We prove the equivalence between LBiKt and DBiKt and outline a proof search strategy for DBiKt. We also give a Kripke semantics and prove that LBiKt is sound with respect to the semantics, but completeness is still an open problem. We then discuss various extensions of LBiKt.
Pdf29 June 2010
Advances in Modal Logic 2010, pp 156–177

A Syntactic Realization Theorem for Justification Logics
Kai Brünnler, Remo Goetschi and Roman Kuznets
AbstractJustification logics are refinements of modal logics where modalities are replaced by justification terms. They are connected to modal logics via socalled realization theorems. We present a syntactic proof of a single realization theorem which uniformly connects all the normal modal logics formed from the axioms d, t, b, 4, and 5 with their justification counterparts. The proof employs cutfree nested sequent systems together with Fitting ?s realization merging technique. We further strengthen the realization theorem for KB5 and S5 by showing that the positive introspection operator is superfluous.
Pdf3 April 2010
Advances in Modal Logic 2010, pp 39–58

A Note on Uniform Interpolation Proofs in Modal Deep Inference Calculi
Marta Bílková
AbstractThis paper answers one rather particular question: how to perform a proof of uniform interpolation property in deep inference calculi for modal logics. We show how to perform a proof of uniform interpolation property in deep inference calculus for the basic modal logic K via forgetting a variable in a certain normal form constructed by backward proof search. For that purpose we modify the framework of deep inference calculus using a cover modality on the meta level to structure deep sequents.
21 September 2009
TbiLLC 2009, LNAI 6618, pp. 30–45

Deep Inference in Biintuitionistic Logic
Linda Postniece
AbstractBiintuitionistic logic is the extension of intuitionistic logic with exclusion, a connective dual to implication. Cutelimination in biintuitionistic logic is complicated due to the interaction between these two connectives, and various extended sequent calculi, including a display calculus, have been proposed to address this problem.
In this paper, we present a new extended sequent calculus DBiInt for biintuitionistic logic which uses nested sequents and “deep inference”, i.e., inference rules can be applied at any level in the nested sequent. We show that DBiInt can simulate our previous “shallow” sequent calculus LBiInt. In particular, we show that deep inference can simulate the residuation rules in the displaylike shallow calculus LBiInt. We also consider proof search and give a simple restriction of DBiInt which allows terminating proof search. Thus our work is another step towards addressing the broader problem of proof search in display logic.
Pdf7 June 2009
WoLLIC 2009, LNCS 5514, pp. 320–334

Modular Sequent Systems for Modal Logic
Kai Brünnler and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe see cutfree sequent systems for the basic normal modal logics formed by any combination the axioms d, t, b, 4, 5. These systems are modular in the sense that each axiom has a corresponding rule and each combination of these rules is complete for the corresponding frame conditions. The systems are based on nested sequents, a natural generalisation of hypersequents. Nested sequents stay inside the modal language, as opposed to both the display calculus and labelled sequents. The completeness proof is via syntactic cut elimination.
Pdf23 April 2009
Tableaux 2009, LNCS 5607, pp. 152–166
Attention, this paper contains some serious mistakes. The authors are working on a corrected version.

Syntactic CutElimination for Common Knowledge
Kai Brünnler and Thomas Studer
AbstractWe first look at an existing infinitary sequent system for common knowledge for which there is no known syntactic cutelimination procedure and also no known nontrivial bound on the proofdepth. We then present another infinitary sequent system based on nested sequents that are essentially trees and with inference rules that apply deeply inside these trees. Thus we call this system "deep" while we call the former system "shallow". In contrast to the shallow system, the deep system allows one to give a straightforward syntactic cutelimination procedure. Since both systems can be embedded into each other, this also yields a syntactic cutelimination procedure for the shallow system. For both systems we thus obtain an upper bound of φ_{2}0 on the depth of proofs, where φ is the Veblen function. We see a cutfree infinitary sequent system for common knowledge. Its sequents are essentially trees and the inference rules apply deeply inside of these trees. This allows to give a syntactic cutelimination procedure which yields an upper bound of on the depth of proofs, where is the Veblen function.

CutElimination and ProofSearch for BiIntuitionistic Logic Using Nested Sequents
Rajeev Goré, Linda Postniece and Alwen Tiu
AbstractWe propose a new sequent calculus for biintuitionistic logic which sits somewhere between display calculi and traditional sequent calculi by using nested sequents. Our calculus enjoys a simple (purely syntactic) cutelimination proof as do display calculi. But it has an easily derivable variant calculus which is amenable to automated proof search as are (some) traditional sequent calculi. We first present the initial calculus and its cutelimination proof. We then present the derived calculus, and then present a proofsearch strategy which allows it to be used for automated proof search. We prove that this search strategy is terminating and complete by showing how it can be used to mimic derivations obtained from an existing calculus GBiInt for biintuitionistic logic. As far as we know, our new calculus is the first sequent calculus for biintuitionistic logic which uses no semantic additions like labels, which has a purely syntactic cutelimination proof, and which can be used naturally for backwards proofsearch.
Pdf15 September 2008
Advances in Modal Logic 2008, pp 43–66

Deep Sequent Systems for Modal Logic
Kai Brünnler
AbstractWe see a systematic set of cutfree axiomatisations for all the basic normal modal logics formed by some combination the axioms d, t, b, 4, 5. They employ a form of deep inference but otherwise stay very close to Gentzen’s sequent calculus, in particular they enjoy a subformula property in the literal sense. No semantic notions are used inside the proof systems, in particular there is no use of labels. All their rules are invertible and the rules cut, weakening and contraction are admissible. All systems admit a straightforward terminating proof search procedure as well as a syntactic cut elimination procedure.
3.4Modal Logic
We can present systematically several normal propositional modal logics, including S5, B and K5, for which cut elimination is proved. We also investigated geometric theories, some of which we expressed in the calculus of structures.
The following papers exist:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Deep Inference for Hybrid Logic
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThis paper describes work in progress on using deep inference for designing a deductive system for hybrid logic. We will see a cutfree system and prove its soundness and completeness. An immediate observation about the system is that there is no need for additional rewrite rules as in Blackburn’s tableaux, nor substitution rules as in Seligman’s sequent system.
Pdf15 May 2007
Proceedings of International Workshop on Hybrid Logic 2007 (HyLo 2007), pp. 13–22

Classical Modal Display Logic in the Calculus of Structures and Minimal and Cutfree Deep Inference Calculi for S5
Rajeev Goré and Alwen Tiu
AbstractWe begin by showing how to faithfully encode the Classical Modal Display Logic (CMDL) of Wansing into the Calculus of Structures (CoS) of Guglielmi. Since every CMDL calculus enjoys cutelimination, we obtain a cutelimination theorem for all corresponding CoS calculi. We then show how our result leads to a minimal cutfree CoS calculus for modal logic S5. As far as we know, no other existing CoS calculi for S5 enjoy both these properties simultaneously.
Pdf4 May 2007
Journal of Logic and Computation 17 (4) 2007, pp. 767–794

A Deep Inference System for the Modal Logic S5
Phiniki Stouppa
AbstractWe present a cutadmissible system for the modal logic S5 in a framework that makes explicit and intensive use of deep inference. Deep inference is induced by the methods applied so far in conceptually pure systems for this logic. Thus, the formulation of a system in such a framework is an evolutional process and leads to positive proof theoretical results. The system enjoys systematicity and modularity, two important properties that seek satisfaction from modal systems. Furthermore, it enjoys a simple and direct design: the rules are few and the modal rules are in exact correspondence to the modal axioms.
Pdf1 March 2006
Studia Logica 85 (2) 2007, pp. 199–214

Purity Through Unravelling
Robert Hein and Charles Stewart
AbstractWe divide attempts to give the structural proof theory of modal logics into two kinds, those pure formulations whose inference rules characterise modality completely by means of manipulations of boxes and diamonds, and those labelled formulations that leverage the use of labels in giving inference rules. The widespread adoption of labelled formulations is driven by their ability to model features of the model theory of modal logic in its proof theory.
We describe here an approach to the structural proof theory of modal logic that aims to bring under one roof the benefits of both the pure and the labelled formulations. We introduce two proof calculi, one labelled sequent formulation and one pure formulation in the calculus of structures that are shown to be in a systematic correlation, where the latter calculus uses deep inference with shaped modal rules to capture in a pure manner the manipulations that the former calculations mediates through the use of labels.
We situate this work within a larger investigation into the proof theory of modal logic that solves problems that existed with the earlier investigation based on prefix modal rules. We hold this development provides yet stronger evidence justifying the claim that good, pure proof theory for modal logic needs deep inference.
Pdf25 June 2005
Proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 126–143

Geometric Theories and Modal Logic in the Calculus of Structures
Robert Hein
AbstractMuch of the success of modal logic can be attributed to the adoption of relational semantics. Consequently, modal logic is seen as logic of relational structures, where logical axioms correspond to structural properties. Alex Simpson, in his 1993 PhD thesis, introduced a labelled proof theory for modal logic that that allows cutelimination for a class of modal logics, which is characterised by so called geometric theories. This includes important and well know logics such as M, B, S4 and S5. This thesis tries to make a bridge between Simpson's result and purely symbolic proof theory. We introduce a method to characterise frame relational properties by means of deep inference in the Calculus of Structures. The results are only partial. Only what we call 3/4ScottLemmon logics are characterised and we only give plausible reason, rather than a proof that the cutelimination argument can be transferred too.
Gzipped postscript20 March 2005
MSc thesis, successfully defended on 23 March 2005

The Design of Modal Proof Theories: The Case of S5
Phiniki Stouppa
AbstractThe sequent calculus does not seem to be capable of supporting cutadmissible formulations for S5. Through a survey on existing cutadmissible systems for this logic, we investigate the solutions proposed to overcome this defect. Accordingly, the systems can be divided into two categories: in those which allow semanticoriented formulae and those which allow formulae in positions not reachable by the usual systems in the sequent calculus. The first solution is not desirable because it is conceptually impure, that is, these systems express concepts of frame semantics in the language of the logic.
Consequently, we focus on the systems of the second group for which we define notions related to deep inference—the ability to apply rules deep inside structures—as well as other desirable properties good systems should enjoy. We classify these systems accordingly and examine how these properties are affected in the presence of deep inference. Finally, we present a cutadmissible system for S5 in a formalism which makes explicit use of deep inference, the calculus of structures, and give reasons for its effectiveness in providing good modal formulations.
Pdf20 October 2004
MSc thesis, successfully defended on 27 October 2004

A Systematic Proof Theory for Several Modal Logics
Charles Stewart and Phiniki Stouppa
AbstractThe family of normal propositional modal logic systems is given a very systematic organisation by their model theory. This model theory is generally given using frame semantics, and it is systematic in the sense that for the most important systems we have a clean, exact correspondence between their constitutive axioms as they are usually given in a HilbertLewis style and conditions on the accessibility relation on frames.
By contrast, the usual structural proof theory of modal logic, as given in Gentzen systems, is adhoc. While we can formulate several modal logics in the sequent calculus that enjoy cutelimination, their formalisation arises through systembysystem fine tuning to ensure that the cutelimination holds, and the correspondence to the formulation in the HilbertLewis systems becomes opaque.
This paper introduces a systematic presentation for the systems K, D, M, S4, and S5 in the calculus of structures, a structural proof theory that employs deep inference. Because of this, we are able to axiomatise the modal logics in a manner directly analogous to the HilbertLewis axiomatisation. We show that the calculus possesses a cutelimination property directly analogous to cutelimination for the sequent calculus for these systems, and we discuss the extension to several other modal logics.
Postscript2 September 2004
Advances in Modal Logic 2004, pp. 309–333
3.5Linear Logic
Linear logic enjoys presentations in deep inference that obtain the expected properties of locality, with rather astounding decomposition theorems and the usual, general normalisation results.
The following papers exist, in addition to Linear Logic and Noncommutativity in the Calculus of Structures, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Interaction and Depth Against Nondeterminism in Proof Search
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractDeep inference is a proof theoretic methodology that generalizes the standard notion of inference of the sequent calculus, whereby inference rules become applicable at any depth inside logical expressions. Deep inference provides more freedom in the design of deductive systems for different logics and a rich combinatoric analysis of proofs. In particular, construction of exponentially shorter analytic proofs becomes possible, however with the cost of a greater nondeterminism than in the sequent calculus. In this paper, we show that the nondeterminism in proof search can be reduced without losing the shorter proofs and without sacrificing proof theoretic cleanliness. For this, we exploit an interaction and depth scheme in the logical expressions. We demonstrate our method on deep inference systems for multiplicative linear logic and classical logic, discuss its proof complexity and its relation to focusing, and present implementations.
Pdf29 May 2014
Logical Methods in Computer Science 10 (2:5) 2014, pp. 1–49
Interana: interactive multiplicative linear logic prover

Equality and Fixpoints in the Calculus of Structures
Kaustuv Chaudhuri and Nicolas Guenot
AbstractThe standard proof theory for logics with equality and fixpoints suffers from limitations of the sequent calculus, where reasoning is separated from computational tasks such as unification or rewriting. We propose in this paper an extension of the calculus of structures, a deep inference formalism, that supports incremental and contextual reasoning with equality and fixpoints in the setting of linear logic. This system allows deductive and computational steps to mix freely in a continuum which integrates smoothly into the usual versatile rules of multiplicativeadditive linear logic in deep inference.
Pdf21 January 2014
Accepted at CSLLICS 2014

The Focused Calculus of Structures
Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Nicolas Guenot and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThe focusing theorem identifies a complete class of sequent proofs that have no inessential nondeterministic choices and restrict the essential choices to a particular normal form. Focused proofs are therefore well suited both for the search and for the representation of sequent proofs. The calculus of structures is a proof formalism that allows rules to be applied deep inside a formula. Through this freedom it can be used to give analytic proof systems for a wider variety of logics than the sequent calculus, but standard presentations of this calculus are too permissive, allowing too many proofs. In order to make it more amenable to proof search, we transplant the focusing theorem from the sequent calculus to the calculus of structures. The key technical contribution is an incremental treatment of focusing that avoids trivializing the calculus of structures. We give a direct inductive proof of the completeness of the focused calculus of structures with respect to a more standard unfocused form. We also show that any focused sequent proof can be represented in the focused calculus of structures, and, conversely, any proof in the focused calculus of structures corresponds to a focused sequent proof.
Pdf25 August 2011
CSL 2011, LIPIcs 12, pp. 159–173

Focused Proof Search for Linear Logic in the Calculus of Structures
Nicolas Guenot
AbstractThe prooftheoretic approach to logic programming has benefited from the introduction of focused proof systems, through the nondeterminism reduction and control they provide when searching for proofs in the sequent calculus. However, this technique was not available in the calculus of structures, known for inducing even more nondeterminism than other logical formalisms. This work in progress aims at translating the notion of focusing into the presentation of linear logic in this setting, and use some of its specific features, such as deep application of rules and fine granularity, in order to improve proof search procedures. The starting point for this research line is the multiplicative fragment of linear logic, for which a simple focused proof system can be built.
Pdf23 June 2010
ICLP 2010, technical communication, LIPIcs 7, pp. 84–93

Some Observations on the Proof Theory of Second Order Propositional Multiplicative Linear Logic
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe investigate the question of what constitutes a proof when quantifiers and multiplicative units are both present. On the technical level this paper provides two new aspects of the proof theory of MLL2 with units. First, we give a novel proof system in the framework of the calculus of structures. The main feature of the new system is the consequent use of deep inference, which allows us to observe a decomposition which is a version of Herbrand’s theorem that is not visible in the sequent calculus. Second, we show a new notion of proof nets which is independent from any deductive system. We have “sequentialisation” into the calculus of structures as well as into the sequent calculus. Since cut elimination is terminating and confluent, we have a category of MLL2 proof nets. The treatment of the units is such that this category is starautonomous.
Pdf10 April 2009
TLCA 2009, LNCS 5608, pp. 309–324
Pdf with proofs in appendix

MELL in the Calculus of Structures
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a new prooftheoretical framework, like natural deduction, the sequent calculus and proof nets, for specifying logical systems syntactically. In a rule in the calculus of structures, the premise as well as the conclusion are structures, which are expressions that share properties of formulae and sequents. In this paper, I study a system for MELL, the multiplicative exponential fragment of linear logic, in the calculus of structures. It has the following features: a local promotion rule, no nondeterministic splitting of the context in the times rule and a modular proof for the cutelimination theorem. Further, derivations have a new property, called decomposition, that cannot be observed in any other known prooftheoretical framework.
Pdf24 November 2003
Theoretical Computer Science 309, pp. 213–285

A Local System for Linear Logic
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn this paper I will present a deductive system for linear logic, in which all rules are local. In particular, the contraction rule is reduced to an atomic version, and there is no global promotion rule. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to depart from the sequent calculus to the calculus of structures, which is a generalization of the onesided sequent calculus. In a rule, premise and conclusion are not sequents, but structures, which are expressions that share properties of formulae and sequents.
3.6Commutative/Noncommutative Linear Logic
We conservatively extend mixed multiplicative and multiplicative exponential linear logic with a selfdual noncommutative operator. The systems so obtained cannot be presented in the sequent calculus, but they enjoy the usual properties of locality, decomposition and cut elimination available in the calculus of structures. We can present Yetter's cyclic linear logic in the calculus of structures and prove cut elimination; interestingly, cyclicity is naturally subsumed by deep inference. New, purely prooftheoretical, techniques are developed for reducing the nondeterminism in the calculus of structures.
The following papers exist, in addition to Linear Logic and Noncommutativity in the Calculus of Structures, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

A Deep Inference System with a SelfDual Binder Which Is Complete for Linear Lambda Calculus
Luca Roversi
AbstractWe recall that SBV, a proof system developed under the methodology of deep inference, extends multiplicative linear logic with the selfdual noncommutative logical operator Seq. We introduce SBVB that extends SBV by adding the selfdual binder Sdb on names. The system SBVB is consistent because we prove that (the analogous of) cutelimination holds for it. Moreover, the resulting interplay between Seq and Sdb can model βreduction of linear λcalculus inside the cutfree subsystem BVB of SBVB. The long term aim is to keep developing a programme whose goal is to give pure logical accounts of computational primitives under the proofsearchascomputation analogy, by means of minimal and incremental extensions of SBV.
Pdf25 January 2014
To appear on Journal of Logic and Computation

A Logical Basis for Quantum Evolution and Entanglement
Richard F. Blute, Alessio Guglielmi, Ivan T. Ivanov, Prakash Panangaden and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe reconsider discrete quantum causal dynamics where quantum systems are viewed as discrete structures, namely directed acyclic graphs. In such a graph, events are considered as vertices and edges depict propagation between events. Evolution is described as happening between a special family of spacelike slices, which were referred to as locative slices. Such slices are not so large as to result in acausal influences, but large enough to capture nonlocal correlations.
In our logical interpretation, edges are assigned logical formulas in a special logical system, called BV, an instance of a deep inference system. We demonstrate that BV, with its mix of commutative and noncommutative connectives, is precisely the right logic for such analysis. We show that the commutative tensor encodes (possible) entanglement, and the noncommutative seq encodes causal precedence. With this interpretation, the locative slices are precisely the derivable strings of formulas. Several new technical results about BV are developed as part of this analysis.
Pdf18 July 2013
In Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics, LNCS 8222, pp. 90–107

Communication, and Concurrency with LogicBased Restriction Inside a Calculus of Structures
Luca Roversi
AbstractIt is well known that we can use structural proof theory to refine, or generalize, existing paradigmatic computational primitives, or to discover new ones. Under such a point of view we keep developing a programme whose goal is establishing a correspondence between proofsearch of a logical system and computations in a process algebra. We give a purely logical account of a process algebra operation which strictly includes the behavior of restriction on actions we find in Milner CCS. This is possible inside a logical system in the Calculus of Structures of Deep Inference endowed with a selfdual quantifier. Using proofsearch of cutfree proofs of such a logical system we show how to solve reachability problems in a process algebra that subsumes a significant fragment of Milner CCS.
Pdf19 December 2012
Submitted

Linear Lambda Calculus and Deep Inference
Luca Roversi
AbstractWe introduce a deep inference logical system SBVr which extends SBV with Rename, a selfdual atomrenaming operator. We prove that the cut free subsystem BVr of SBVr exists. We embed the terms of linear lambdacalculus with explicit substitutions into formulas of SBVr. Our embedding recalls the one of full lambdacalculus into picalculus. The proofsearch inside SBVr and BVr is complete with respect to the evaluation of linear lambdacalculus with explicit substitutions. Instead, only soundness of proofsearch in SBVr holds. Rename is crucial to let proofsearch simulate the substitution of a linear lambdaterm for a variable in the course of linear betareduction. Despite SBVr is a minimal extension of SBV its proofsearch can compute all boolean functions, exactly like linear lambdacalculus with explicit substitutions can do.

A System of Interaction and Structure V: The Exponentials and Splitting
Alessio Guglielmi and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractSystem NEL is the mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic’s exponentials, or, equivalently, it is MELL augmented with the noncommutative selfdual connective seq. NEL is presented in deep inference, because no Gentzen formalism can express it in such a way that the cut rule is admissible. Other, recent works, show that system NEL is Turing complete, it is able to directly express process algebra sequential composition and it faithfully models causal quantum evolution. In this paper, we show cut elimination for NEL, based on a technique that we call splitting. The splitting theorem shows how and to what extent we can recover a sequentlike structure in NEL proofs. Together with a ‘decomposition’ theorem, proved in the previous paper of this series, splitting yields a cutelimination procedure for NEL.
Pdf21 September 2010
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 21 (3) 2011, pp. 563–584
This paper is the second part resulted from splitting into two parts the paper A System of Interaction and Structure IV: The Exponentials (which was previously titled A Noncommutative Extension of Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic and was the journal version of A Noncommutative Extension of MELL).

A System of Interaction and Structure IV: The Exponentials and Decomposition
Lutz Straßburger and Alessio Guglielmi
AbstractWe study a system, called NEL, which is the mixed commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV augmented with linear logic’s exponentials. Equivalently, NEL is MELL augmented with the noncommutative selfdual connective seq. In this paper, we show a basic compositionality property of NEL, which we call decomposition. This result leads to a cutelimination theorem, which is proved in the next paper of this series. To control the induction measure for the theorem, we rely on a novel technique that extracts from NEL proofs the structure of exponentials, into what we call !?FlowGraphs.
Pdf27 July 2010
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 12 (4:23) 2011, pp. 1–39
This paper is the first part resulted from splitting into two parts the paper A System of Interaction and Structure IV: The Exponentials (which was previously titled A Noncommutative Extension of Multiplicative Exponential Linear Logic and was the journal version of A Noncommutative Extension of MELL).

Deep Inference and Probabilistic Coherence Spaces
Richard Blute, Prakash Panangaden and Sergey Slavnov
AbstractThis paper proposes a definition of categorical model of the deep inference system BV, defined by Guglielmi. Deep inference introduces the idea of performing a deduction in the interior of a formula, at any depth. Traditional sequent calculus rules only see the roots of formulae. However in these new systems, one can rewrite at any position in the formula tree. Deep inference in particular allows the syntactic description of logics for which there is no sequent calculus. One such system is BV, which extends linear logic to include a noncommutative selfdual connective. This is the logic our paper proposes to model. Our definition is based on the notion of a linear functor, due to Cockett and Seely. A BVcategory is a linearly distributive category, possibly with negation, with an additional tensor product which, when viewed as a bivariant functor, is linear with a degeneracy condition. We show that this simple definition implies all of the key isomorphisms of the theory. We consider Girard’s category of probabilistic coherence spaces and show that it contains a selfdual monoidal structure in addition to the *autonomous structure exhibited by Girard. This structure makes the category a BVcategory. We believe this structure is also of independent interest, as wellbehaved noncommutative operators generally are.
Pdf10 February 2009
Applied Categorical Structures 20 2012, pp. 209–228

System BV Is NPComplete
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractSystem BV is an extension of multiplicative linear logic (MLL) with the rules mix, nullary mix, and a selfdual, noncommutative logical operator, called seq. While the rules mix and nullary mix extend the deductive system, the operator seq extends the language of MLL. Due to the operator seq, system BV extends the applications of MLL to those where sequential composition is crucial, e.g., concurrency theory. System FBV is an extension of MLL with the rules mix and nullary mix. In this paper, by relying on the fact that system BV is a conservative extension of system FBV, I show that system BV is NPcomplete by encoding the 3Partition problem in FBV. I provide a simple completeness proof of this encoding by resorting to a novel proof theoretical method for reducing the nondeterminism in proof search, which is also of independent interest.

A System of Interaction and Structure
Alessio Guglielmi
AbstractThis paper introduces a logical system, called BV, which extends multiplicative linear logic by a noncommutative selfdual logical operator. This extension is particularly challenging for the sequent calculus, and so far it is not achieved therein. It becomes very natural in a new formalism, called the calculus of structures, which is the main contribution of this work. Structures are formulae subject to certain equational laws typical of sequents. The calculus of structures is obtained by generalising the sequent calculus in such a way that a new topdown symmetry of derivations is observed, and it employs inference rules that rewrite inside structures at any depth. These properties, in addition to allowing the design of BV, yield a modular proof of cut elimination.
Pdf27 January 2007
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 8 (1:1) 2007, pp. 1–64
The journal version has been butchered by the editorial process, but the preprint (linked here) is fine.
At the end of 2012, this was the most cited article appeared in ACM TOCL in the previous five years.

Reducing Nondeterminism in the Calculus of Structures
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a proof theoretical formalism which generalizes the sequent calculus with the feature of deep inference: In contrast to the sequent calculus, inference rules can be applied at any depth inside a formula, bringing shorter proofs than any other formalisms supporting analytical proofs. However, deep applicability of the inference rules causes greater nondeterminism than in the sequent calculus regarding proof search. In this paper, we introduce a new technique which reduces nondeterminism without breaking proof theoretical properties and provides a more immediate access to shorter proofs. We present this technique on system BV, the smallest technically nontrivial system in the calculus of structures, extending multiplicative linear logic with the rules mix, nullary mix, and a selfdual noncommutative logical operator. Because our technique exploits a scheme common to all the systems in the calculus of structures, we argue that it generalizes to these systems for classical logic, linear logic, and modal logics.
Pdf23 August 2006
LPAR 2006, LNCS 4246, pp. 272–286

A System of Interaction and Structure II: The Need for Deep Inference
Alwen Tiu
AbstractThis paper studies properties of the logic BV, which is an extension of multiplicative linear logic (MLL) with a selfdual noncommutative operator. BV is presented in the calculus of structures, a proof theoretic formalism that supports deep inference, in which inference rules can be applied anywhere inside logical expressions. The use of deep inference results in a simple logical system for MLL extended with the selfdual noncommutative operator, which has been to date not known to be expressible in sequent calculus. In this paper, deep inference is shown to be crucial for the logic BV, that is, any restriction on the "depth" of the inference rules of BV would result in a strictly less expressive logical system.
Pdf3 April 2006
Logical Methods in Computer Science 2 (2:4) 2006, pp. 1–24
There are pictures that help understanding this paper in Alwen Tiu's MSc thesis Properties of a Logical System in the Calculus of Structures

Structures for Multiplicative Cyclic Linear Logic: Deepness vs Cyclicity
Pietro Di Gianantonio
AbstractThe aim of this work is to give an alternative presentation for the multiplicative fragment of Yetter’s cyclic linear logic. The new presentation is inspired by the calculus of structures, and has the interesting feature of avoiding the cyclic rule. The main point in this work is to show how cyclicity can be substituted by deepness, i.e. the possibility of applying an inference rule at any point of a formula. We finally derive, through a new proof technique, the cut elimination property of the calculus.
Pdf15 April 2004
CSL 2004, LNCS 3210, pp. 130–144

A Noncommutative Extension of MELL
Alessio Guglielmi and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe extend multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) by a noncommutative, selfdual logical operator. The extended system, called NEL, is defined in the formalism of the calculus of structures, which is a generalisation of the sequent calculus and provides a more refined analysis of proofs. We should then be able to extend the range of applications of MELL, by modelling a broad notion of sequentiality and providing new properties of proofs. We show some proof theoretical results: decomposition and cut elimination. The new operator represents a significant challenge: to get our results we use here for the first time some novel techniques, which constitute a uniform and modular approach to cut elimination, contrary to what is possible in the sequent calculus.
Pdf9 August 2002
LPAR 2002, LNCS 2514, pp. 231–246

The Undecidability of System NEL
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractSystem NEL is a conservative extension of multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) by a selfdual noncommutative connective called seq which lives between the par and the times. In this paper, I will show that system NEL is undecidable by encoding two counter machines into NEL. Although the encoding is quite simple, the proof of the faithfulness is a little intricate because there is no sequent calculus and no phase semantics available for NEL.

A1Unification
Alwen Fernanto Tiu
Gzipped postscript19 February 2002
Technical Report WV0108, Technische Universität Dresden

Combining A1 and AC1Unification Sharing Unit
Alwen Fernanto Tiu
Gzipped postscript19 February 2002
Technical Report WV0109, Technische Universität Dresden

Properties of a Logical System in the Calculus of Structures
Alwen Fernanto Tiu
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a new framework for presenting logical systems. It is a generalisation of a traditional framework, the onesided sequent calculus. One of the main features of the calculus of structures is that the inference rules are deep: they can be applied anywhere inside logical expressions. Rules in the sequent calculus are, in contrast, shallow. A certain logical system in the calculus of structures, called System BV, is studied here. We see that the deepnesting of rules is a real distinguishing feature between the two frameworks. To this purpose a notion of shallow systems is introduced, such that sequent systems are particular instances. A counterexample, sort of a fractal structure, is then presented to show that there is no shallow system for the logic behind BV, and hence no sequent system for BV. This result contributes to justifying the claim that the calculus of structures is a better logical framework than sequent calculus, for certain logics.
Pdf12 September 2001Now replaced by A System of Interaction and Structure II: The Need for DeepInference
MSc thesis, successfully defended on 1 August 2001, Technical Report WV0106, Technische Universität Dresden

Noncommutativity and MELL in the Calculus of Structures
Alessio Guglielmi and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe introduce the calculus of structures: it is more general than the sequent calculus and it allows for cut elimination and the subformula property. We show a simple extension of multiplicative linear logic, by a selfdual noncommutative operator inspired by CCS, that seems not to be expressible in the sequent calculus. Then we show that multiplicative exponential linear logic benefits from its presentation in the calculus of structures, especially because we can replace the ordinary, global promotion rule by a local version. These formal systems, for which we prove cut elimination, outline a range of techniques and properties that were not previously available. Contrarily to what happens in the sequent calculus, the cut elimination proof is modular.
Pdf28 June 2001
CSL 2001, LNCS 2142, pp. 54–68

A Calculus of Order and Interaction
Alessio Guglielmi
This paper has been thoroughly rewritten as A System of Interaction and Structure. The introduction of the new paper has not been written under the effect of psychotropic substances. Please forget about this paper.
Technical Report WV9904, Technische Universität Dresden
3.7Proof Nets, Semantics of Proofs and the War to Bureaucracy
Deep inference and the calculus of structures are influencing the design of a new generation of proof nets. Moreover, they offer new insight for semantics of proofs and categorical proof theory. Finally, they open decisive new perspectives in the fight against bureaucracy.
The following papers exist, in addition to A General View of Normalisation Through Atomic Flows and Categorical Models of First Order Classical Proofs, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

The Structure of Interaction
Stéphane Gimenez and Georg Moser
AbstractInteraction nets form a local and strongly confluent model of computation that is per se parallel. We introduce a Curry–Howard correspondence between wellformed interaction nets and a deepinference deduction system based on linear logic. In particular, linear logic itself is easily expressed in the system and its computational aspects materialise though the correspondence. The system of interaction nets obtained is a typed variant of already wellknown sharing graphs. Due to a strong confluence property, strong normalisation for this system follows from weak normalisation. The latter is obtained via an adaptation of Girard’s reducibility method. The approach is modular, readily gives rise to generalisations (e.g. second order, known as polymorphism to the programmer) and could therefore be extended to various systems of interaction nets.
Pdf4 July 2013
CSL 2013, LIPIcs 23, pp. 316–331

A Proof Calculus Which Reduces Syntactic Bureaucracy
Alessio Guglielmi, Tom Gundersen and Michel Parigot
AbstractIn usual proof systems, like sequent calculus, only a very limited way of combining proofs is available through the tree structure. We present in this paper a logicindependent proof calculus, where proofs can be freely composed by connectives, and prove its basic properties. The main advantage of this proof calculus is that it allows to avoid certain types of syntactic bureaucracy inherent to all usual proof systems, in particular sequent calculus. Proofs in this system closely reflect their atomic flow, which traces the behaviour of atoms through structural rules. The general definition is illustrated by the standard deepinference system for propositional logic, for which there are known rewriting techniques that achieve cut elimination based only on the information in atomic flows.
Pdf12 April 2010
RTA 2010, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) 6, pp. 135–150
This paper supersedes the note Formalism A.

What Is the Problem with Proof Nets for Classical Logic?
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThis paper is an informal (and nonexhaustive) overview over some existing notions of proof nets for classical logic, and gives some hints why they might be considered to be unsatisfactory.
Pdf6 April 2010
CiE 2010, LNCS 6158, pp. 406–416

From Deep Inference to Proof Nets via Cut Elimination
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThis article shows how derivations in the deep inference system SKS for classical propositional logic can be translated into proof nets. Since an SKS derivation contains more information about a proof than the corresponding proof net, we observe a loss of information which can be understood as “eliminating bureaucracy”. Technically this is achieved by cut reduction on proof nets. As an intermediate step between the two extremes, SKS derivations and proof nets, we will see proof graphs representing derivations in “Formalism A”.

On the Axiomatisation of Boolean Categories with and without Medial
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn its most general meaning, a Boolean category is to categories what a Boolean algebra is to posets. In a more specific meaning a Boolean category should provide the abstract algebraic structure underlying the proofs in Boolean Logic, in the same sense as a Cartesian closed category captures the proofs in intuitionistic logic and a *autonomous category captures the proofs in linear logic. However, recent work has shown that there is no canonical axiomatisation of a Boolean category. In this work, we will see a series (with increasing strength) of possible such axiomatisations, all based on the notion of *autonomous category. We will particularly focus on the medial map, which has its origin in an inference rule in KS, a cutfree deductive system for Boolean logic in the calculus of structures. Finally, we will present a category proof nets as a particularly wellbehaved example of a Boolean category.

What Is a Logic, and What Is a Proof?
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractI will discuss the two problems of how to define identity between logics and how to define identity between proofs. For the identity of logics, I propose to simply use the notion of preorder equivalence. This might be considered to be folklore, but is exactly what is needed from the viewpoint of the problem of the identity of proofs: If the proofs are considered to be part of the logic, then preorder equivalence becomes equivalence of categories, whose arrows are the proofs. For identifying these, the concept of proof nets is discussed.
Pdf23 October 2006
Logica Universalis—Towards a General Theory of Logic, pp. 135–152, Birkhäuser, 2007

Proof Nets and the Identity of Proofs
Lutz Straßburger
AbstractThese are the notes for a 5lecturecourse given at ESSLLI 2006 in Malaga, Spain. The URL of the school is http://esslli2006.lcc.uma.es/. The course is intended to be introductory. That means no prior knowledge of proof nets is required. However, the student should be familiar with the basics of propositional logic, and should have seen formal proofs in some formal deductive system (e.g., sequent calculus, natural deduction, resolution, tableaux, calculus of structures, FregeHilbertsystems, ...). It is probably helpful if the student knows already what cut elimination is, but this is not strictly necessary. In these notes, I will introduce the concept of “proof nets” from the viewpoint of the problem of the identity of proofs. I will proceed in a rather informal way. The focus will be more on presenting ideas than on presenting technical details. The goal of the course is to give the student an overview of the theory of proof nets and make the vast amount of literature on the topic easier accessible to the beginner. For introducing the basic concepts of the theory, I will in the first part of the course stick to the unitfree multiplicative fragment of linear logic because of its rather simple notion of proof nets. In the second part of the course we will see proof nets for more sophisticated logics.
Pdf20 October 2006
Technical Report 6013, INRIA

From Proof Nets to the Free *Autonomous Category
François Lamarche and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractIn the first part of this paper we present a theory of proof nets for full multiplicative linear logic, including the two units. It naturally extends the wellknown theory of unitfree multiplicative proof nets. A linking is no longer a set of axiom links but a tree in which the axiom links are subtrees. These trees will be identified according to an equivalence relation based on a simple form of graph rewriting. We show the standard results of sequentialization and strong normalization of cut elimination. In the second part of the paper we show that the identifications enforced on proofs are such that the class of twoconclusion proof nets defines the free *autonomous category.
Pdf5 October 2006Journal version of On Proof Nets for Multiplicative Linear Logic with Units
Logical Methods in Computer Science 2 (4:3) 2006, pp. 1–44

Completeness of MLL ProofNets w.r.t. Weak Distributivity
JeanBaptiste Joinet
AbstractWe examine ‘weakdistributivity’ as a rewriting rule ^{WD}→ defined on multiplicative proofstructures (so, in particular, on multiplicative proofnets: MLL). This rewriting does not preserve the type of proofsnets, but does nevertheless preserve their correctness. The specific contribution of this paper, is to give a direct proof of completeness for ^{WD}→: starting from a set of simple generators (proofnets which are a nary ⊗ of ℘ized axioms), any monoconclusion MLL proofnet can be reached by ^{WD}→ rewriting (up to ⊗ and ℘ associativity and commutativity).
Pdf8 September 2006
The Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (1) 2007, pp. 159–170
Invited talk at WoLLIC 2003, under the title 'Calculus of Structures and Proof Nets', Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 84; a short version appeared in the proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 81–94

Exploring the Gap between Linear and Classical Logic
François Lamarche
AbstractThe Medial rule was first devised as a deduction rule in the Calculus of Structures. In this paper we explore it from the point of view of category theory, as additional structure on a *autonomous category. This gives us some insights on the denotational semantics of classical propositional logic, and allows us to construct new models for it, based on suitable generalizations of the theory of coherence spaces.
Pdf27 June 2006
Theory and Applications of Categories 18 (17) 2007, pp. 473–535

The Three Dimensions of Proofs
Yves Guiraud
AbstractIn this document, we study a 3polygraphic translation for the proofs of SKS, a formal system for classical propositional logic. We prove that the free 3category generated by this 3polygraph describes the proofs of classical propositional logic modulo structural bureaucracy. We give a 3dimensional generalization of Penrose diagrams and use it to provide several pictures of a proof. We sketch how local transformations of proofs yield a non contrived example of 4dimensional rewriting.

On Two Forms of Bureaucracy in Derivations
Kai Brünnler and Stéphane Lengrand
AbstractWe call irrelevant information in derivations bureaucracy. An example of such irrelevant information is the order between two consecutive inference rules that trivially permute. Building on ideas by Guglielmi, we identify two forms of bureaucracy that occur in the calculus of structures (and, in fact, in every nontrivial term rewriting derivation). We develop term calculi that provide derivations that do not contain this bureaucracy. We also give a normalisation procedure that removes bureaucracy from derivations and find that in a certain sense the normalisation process is a process of cut elimination.
Pdf10 June 2005
Proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 69–80
This is further expanded in Ch. 11 of Stéphane Lengrand's PhD thesis Normalisation & Equivalence in Proof Theory & Type Theory (2007 Ackermann Award of the EACSL)

Constructing Free Boolean Categories
François Lamarche and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractBy Boolean category we mean something which is to a Boolean algebra what a category is to a poset. We propose an axiomatic system for Boolean categories, which is different in several respects from the ones proposed recently. In particular everything is done from the start in a *autonomous category and not in a weakly distributive one, which simplifies issues like the Mix rule. An important axiom, which is introduced later, is a "graphical" condition, which is closely related to denotational semantics and the Geometry of Interaction. Then we show that a previously constructed category of proof nets is the free "graphical" Boolean category in our sense. This validates our categorical axiomatization with respect to a reallife example. Another important aspect of this work is that we do not assume apriori the existence of units in the *autonomous categories we use. This has some retroactive interest for the semantics of linear logic, and is motivated by the properties of our example with respect to units.

Classical Categories and Deep Inference
Richard McKinley
AbstractDeep inference is a prooftheoretic notion in which proof rules apply arbitrarily deeply inside a formula. We show that the essence of deep inference is the bifunctoriality of the connectives. We demonstrate that, when given an inequational theory that models cutreduction, a deep inference calculus for classical logic (SKSg) is a categorical model of the classical sequent calculus LK in the sense of Führmann and Pym. We observe that this gives a notion of cutreduction for derivations in SKSg, for which the usual notion of cut in SKSg is a special case. Viewing SKSg as a model of the sequent calculus uncovers new insights into the Craig interpolation lemma and intuitionistic provability.
Pdf31 March 2005
Proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 19–33

Naming Proofs in Classical Propositional Logic
François Lamarche and Lutz Straßburger
AbstractWe present a theory of proof denotations in classical propositional logic. The abstract definition is in terms of a semiring of weights, and two concrete instances are explored. With the Boolean semiring we get a theory of classical proof nets, with a geometric correctness criterion, a sequentialization theorem, and a strongly normalizing cutelimination procedure. With the semiring of natural numbers, we obtain a sound semantics for classical logic, in which fewer proofs are identified. Though a "real" sequentialization theorem is missing, these proof nets have a grip on complexity issues. In both cases the cut elimination procedure is closely related to its equivalent in the calculus of structures, and we get "Boolean" categories which are not posets.
Pdf31 January 2005
TLCA 2005, LNCS 3461, pp. 246–261

Deep Inference Proof Theory Equals Categorical Proof Theory Minus Coherence
Dominic Hughes
AbstractThis paper links deep inference proof theory, as studied by Guglielmi et. al., to categorical proof theory in the sense of Lambek et. al. It observes how deep inference proof theory is categorical proof theory, minus the coherence diagrams/laws. Coherence yields a readymade and well studied notion of equality on deep inference proofs. The paper notes a precise correspondence between the symmetric deep inference system for multiplicative linear logic (the linear fragment of SKSg and the presentation of *autonomous categories as symmetric linearly distributive categories with negation. Contraction and weakening in SKSg corresponds precisely to the presence of (co)monoids.
Pdf6 October 2004

On Proof Nets for Multiplicative Linear Logic with Units
Lutz Straßburger and François Lamarche
AbstractIn this paper we present a theory of proof nets for full multiplicative linear logic, including the two units. It naturally extends the wellknown theory of unitfree multiplicative proof nets. A linking is no longer a set of axiom links but a tree in which the axiom links are subtrees. These trees will be identified according to an equivalence relation based on a simple form of graph rewriting. We show the standard results of sequentialization and strong normalization of cut elimination. Furthermore, the identifications enforced on proofs are such that the proof nets, as they are presented here, form the arrows of the free (symmetric) *autonomous category.
Pdf30 June 2004
CSL 2004, LNCS 3210, pp. 145–159
3.8Language Design
Thanks to a selfdual noncommutative extension of linear logic one gets the first purely logical account of sequentiality in proof search. The new logical operators make possible a new approach to partial order planning and its relation to concurrency.
The following papers exist, in addition to Nondeterminism and Language Design in Deep Inference, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

On Linear Logic Planning and Concurrency
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractWe present an approach to linear logic planning where an explicit correspondence between partial order plans and multiplicative exponential linear logic proofs is established. This is performed by extracting partial order plans from sound and complete encoding of planning problems in multiplicative exponential linear logic. These partial order plans exhibit a noninterleaving behavioural concurrency semantics, i.e., labelled event structures. Relying on this fact, we argue that this work is a crucial step for establishing a common language for concurrency and planning that will allow to carry techniques and methods between these two fields.

A Deductive Compositional Approach to Petri Nets for Systems Biology
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractWe introduce the language CP, a compositional language for place transition petri nets for the purpose of modelling signalling pathways in complex biological systems. We give the operational semantics of the language CP by means of a proof theoretical deductive system which extends multiplicative exponential linear logic with a selfdual noncommutative logical operator. This allows to express parallel and sequential composition of processes at the same syntactic level as in process algebra, and perform logical reasoning on these processes. We demonstrate the use of the language on a model of a signaling pathway for Fc receptormediated phagocytosis.
Pdf18 September 2007
Presented as poster at CMSB '07

Labeled Event Structure Semantics of Linear Logic Planning
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
Pdf17 January 2005
Presented at 1st World Congress on Universal Logic

Towards Planning as Concurrency
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractWe present a purely logical framework to planning where we bring the sequential and parallel composition in the plans to the same level, as in process algebras. The problem of expressing causality, which is very challenging for common logics and traditional deductive systems, is solved by resorting to a recently developed extension of multiplicative exponential linear logic with a selfdual, noncommutative operator. We present an encoding of the conjunctive planning problems in this logic, and provide a constructive soundness and completeness result. We argue that this work is the first, but crucial, step of a uniform deductive formalism that connects planning and concurrency inside a common language, and allow to transfer methods from concurrency to planning.
Pdf19 October 2004
Artificial Intelligence and Applications 2005, ACTA Press, pp. 197–202

A Purely Logical Account of Sequentiality in Proof Search
Paola Bruscoli
AbstractWe establish a strict correspondence between the proofsearch space of a logical formal system and computations in a simple process algebra. Sequential composition in the process algebra corresponds to a logical relation in the formal system—in this sense our approach is purely logical, no axioms or encodings are involved. The process algebra is a minimal restriction of CCS to parallel and sequential composition; the logical system is a minimal extension of multiplicative linear logic. This way we get the first purely logical account of sequentiality in proof search. Since we restrict attention to a small but meaningful fragment, which is then of very broad interest, our techniques should become a common basis for several possible extensions. In particular, we argue about this work being the first step in a twostep research for capturing most of CCS in a purely logical fashion.
Pdf12 August 2002
ICLP 2002, LNCS 2401, pp. 302–316
3.9Implementations
Ozan Kahramanoğulları, PierreEtienne Moreau and Antoine Reilles are implementing calculusofstructures proof systems in Maude and in Tom. Ozan managed to achieve efficiency without sacrificing proof theoretic cleanliness, and he is obtaining results of independent theoretical interest. There are two slides presentations:
Max Schäfer has built a graphical proof editor in Java, called GraPE, for the Maude modules written by Ozan Kahramanoğulları; this means that one can interactively build and find proofs in several deepinference systems.
The following papers exist, in addition to Nondeterminism and Language Design in Deep Inference, mentioned above:
Abstracts ON or OFF (Javascript required).

Ingredients of a Deep Inference Theorem Prover
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractDeep inference deductive systems for classical logic provide exponentially shorter proofs than the sequent calculus systems, however with the cost of higher nondeterminism and larger search space in proof search. We report on our ongoing work on proof search with deep inference deductive systems. We present systems for classical logic where nondeterminism in proof search is reduced by constraining the context management rule of these systems. We argue that a deep inference system for classical logic can outperform sequent calculus deductive systems in proof search when nondeterminism and the application of the contraction rule are controlled by means of invertible rules.
Pdf24 June 2008
Short paper at CL&C'08

Maude as a Platform for Designing and Implementing Deep Inference Systems
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractDeep inference is a proof theoretical methodology that generalizes the traditional notion of inference in the sequent calculus: In contrast to the sequent calculus, the deductive systems with deep inference do not rely on the notion of main connective, and permit the application of the inference rules at any depth inside logical expressions, in a way which resembles the application of term rewriting rules. Deep inference provides a richer combinatoric analysis of proofs for different logics. In particular, construction of exponentially shorter proofs becomes possible. In this paper, aiming at the development of computation as proof search tools, we propose the Maude language as a means for designing and implementing different deep inference deductive systems and proof strategies that work on these systems. We demonstrate these ideas on classical logic and argue that these ideas can be analogously carried to other deductive systems for other logics.
Pdf16 September 2007
RULE '07, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 219, 2008, pp. 35–50

Canonical Abstract Syntax Trees
Antoine Reilles
AbstractThis paper presents GOM, a language for describing abstract syntax trees and generating a Java implementation for those trees. GOM includes features allowing to specify and modify the interface of the data structure. These features provide in particular the capability to maintain the internal representation of data in canonical form with respect to a rewrite system. This explicitly guarantees that the client program only manipulates normal forms for this rewrite system, a feature which is only implicitly used in many implementations.
Pdf28 March 2006
Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and Its Applications, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 176, 2007, pp. 165–179

Implementing Deep Inference in TOM
Ozan Kahramanoğulları, PierreEtienne Moreau, Antoine Reilles
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a proof theoretical formalism which generalizes sequent calculus with the feature of deep inference: in contrast to sequent calculus, the calculus of structures does not rely on the notion of main connective and, like in term rewriting, it permits the application of inference rules at any depth inside a formula. Tom is a pattern matching processor that integrates term rewriting facilities into imperative languages. In this paper, relying on the correspondence between the systems in the calculus of structures and term rewriting systems, we present an implementation of system BV of the calculus of structures in Java by exploiting the term rewriting features of Tom. This way, by means of the expressive power due to Java, it becomes possible to implement different search strategies. Since the systems in the calculus of structures follow a common scheme, we argue that our implementation can be generalized to other systems in the calculus of structures for classical logic, modal logics, and different fragments of linear logic.
Pdf23 April 2005
Proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 158–172

System BV Without the Equalities for Unit
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractSystem BV is an extension of multiplicative linear logic with a noncommutative selfdual operator. In this paper, we present systems equivalent to system BV where equalities for unit are oriented from left to right and new structural rules are introduced to preserve completeness. While the first system allows units to appear in the structures, the second system makes it possible to completely remove the units from the language of BV by proving the normal forms of the structures that are provable in BV. The resulting systems provide better performance in automated proof search by disabling redundant applications of inference rules due to the unit. As evidence, we provide a comparison of the performance of these systems in a Maude implementation.
Pdf4 August 2004
ISCIS 2004, LNCS 3280, pp. 986–995

From the Calculus of Structures to Term Rewriting Systems
Steffen Hölldobler and Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractThe calculus of structures is a recently developed proof theoretical formalism that extends onesided sequent calculus, with the gain of interesting proof theoretical properties. In contrast to sequent calculus, it does not rely on the notion of main connective and, like in term rewriting, permits the application of inference rules anywhere deep inside a formula. In this paper, exploiting this resemblance, we present a procedure turning derivations in the calculus of structures in four steps into rewritings in a term rewriting system modulo equality.
13 June 2004
Technical Report WV0403, Technische Universität Dresden

Implementing System BV of the Calculus of Structures in Maude
Ozan Kahramanoğulları
AbstractSystem BV is an extension of multiplicative linear logic with a noncommutative selfdual operator. We first map derivations of system BV of the calculus of structures to rewritings in a term rewriting system modulo equality, and then express this rewriting system as a Maude system module. This results in an automated proof search implementation for this system, and provides a recipe for implementing existing calculus of structures systems for other logics. Our result is interesting from the view of applications, specially, where sequentiality is essential, e.g., planning and natural language processing. In particular, we argue that we can express plans as logical formulae by using the sequential operator of BV and reason on them in a purely logical way.
Pdf13 June 2004
Proceedings of ESSLLI 2004Student Session
4Current Research Topics and Open Problems
In this page I list all open and currently explored research subjects I am aware of. The solutions to most of these problems are instrumental in reaching the common goal of a comprehensive bureaucracyfree proof theory based on geometric methods.
 Introduction
 Calculus of Structures
 Classical, Intuitionistic and Intermediate Logics
 Linear Logic
 Modal Logic
 Commutative/Noncommutative Linear Logic
 Computability Logic
 Language Design
 Proof Search
 Implementations
 Formalism A
 Formalism B, Deductive Nets and Identity of Derivations
 Proof Nets and Semantics of Proofs
 Deep Inference and Display Calculus
 Deep Inference and Hypersequents
 Subatomic Proof Theory
 Causal Quantum Evolution
5Counterexamples
Finding counterexamples is one of the funniest sides of our activity. They are typically of a very combinatorial nature, due to the new combinatorial possibilities offered by deep inference.
 Classical Logic
 Atomic contraction is not achievable in the sequent calculus
 Contraction cannot be pushed to the root of sequent calculus proofs
 Cocontraction does not replace contraction
 Binary tautologies and atomic contraction
 Modal Logic
 4 rules cannot be interchanged for K4
 BV
 BV cannot be expressed in the sequent calculus
 Comerge does not permute over merge
 Interaction can only be pushed up in the presence of coseq
6Notes

A Subatomic Proof SystemAndrea Aler Tubella and Alessio GuglielmiIn this work we show a proof system, called SA, that generates propositional proofs by employing a single, linear, simple and regular inference rule scheme. The main idea is to consider atoms as selfdual, noncommutative binary logical relations and build formulae by freely composing units by atoms, disjunction and conjunction. If we restrict proofs to formulae where no atom occurs in the scope of another atom, we fully and faithfully recover a deduction system for propositional logic in the usual sense, where traditional proof analysis and transformation techniques such as cut elimination can be studied.5 July 2014

The Commutative/Noncommutative Linear Logic BVAlessio GuglielmiThis brief survey contains an informal presentation of the commutative/noncommutative linear logic BV in terms of a naif spacetemporal model. BV improves on the ability of linear logic to model spatial structure by satisfactorily capturing temporal structure in programming languages and quantum physics. I provide a guide to the literature on BV and suggest that the only satisfactory treatment for it can be obtained in the prooftheoretic methodology of deep inference.8 May 2014

The Logic BV and Quantum CausalityRichard Blute, Prakash Panangaden and Lutz StraßburgerWe describe how a logic with commutative and noncommutative connectives can be used for capturing the essence of discrete quantum causal propagation.12 September 2008Superseded by A Logical Basis for Quantum Evolution and Entanglement

Polynomial Size DeepInference Proofs Instead of Exponential Size ShallowInference ProofsAlessio GuglielmiBy a simple example, I show how deep inference can provide for an exponential speedup in the size of proofs with respect to shallow inference.22 September 2007SlidesSuperseded by On the Proof Complexity of Deep Inference

Finitary CutAlessio GuglielmiWe all know that the traditional cut rule is considered infinitary. But if we reduce the cut rule to atomic form, as we always can do in the calculus of structures, is atomic cut still infinitary? Not really.22 September 2007Superseded by A First Order System with Finite Choice of Premises

On Analytic Inference Rules in the Calculus of StructuresPaola Bruscoli and Alessio GuglielmiWe discuss the notion of analytic inference rule for propositional logics in the calculus of structures.25 November 2009

Interaction and Depth Against Nondeterminism in Proof SearchOzan KahramanoğullarıWe argue that, by exploiting an interaction and depth scheme in the logical expressions, the nondeterminism in proof search can be reduced without losing the shorter proofs and breaking proof theoretical properties.23 April 2007Presented at Automated Reasoning Workshop 2007

ButterfliesAlessio GuglielmiIf you're interested in NEL and BV, try and find the mistake in this note.29 July 2005

Some News on Subatomic LogicAlessio GuglielmiI found a simple explanation for the soundness of the subatomic inference rule.28 July 2005

Red and BlueAlessio GuglielmiThe sequent calculus is often colour blind, but not always; the calculus of structures has a consistent behaviour.26 July 2005

The Problem of Bureaucracy and Identity of Proofs from the Perspective of Deep InferenceAlessio GuglielmiSome discussion and then the first attempt at wired/weird deduction.17 June 2005Proceedings of Structures and Deduction '05, pp. 53–68

Getting Formalisms A and B by ProofTerms and Typing SystemsStéphane Lengrand and Kai Brünnler 11 February 2005Expanded into On Two Forms of Bureaucracy in Derivations

Formalism BAlessio GuglielmiInference rules operate on derivations.20 December 2004

Using BV to Describe Causal Quantum EvolutionPrakash PanangadenIn this note I describe how to capture the kinematics of quantum causal evolution using a logic called BV developed by the Calculus of Structures group at Dresden.5 July 2004

Formalism AAlessio GuglielmiI generalise the notion of derivation for taking care of a certain kind of bureaucracy.23 April 2004Superseded by A Proof Calculus Which Reduces Syntactic Bureaucracy

Resolution in the Calculus of StructuresAlessio GuglielmiIt is possible to search for cutfree proofs by the resolution strategy in the calculus of structures; the sequent calculus does not allow the same freedom.29 September 2003

MismatchAlessio GuglielmiThere is a mismatch between meta and object levels in many calculi, like the sequent calculus and natural deduction. The mismatch has undesirable proof theoretical consequences, the most important being the inability to design deductive systems.24 August 2003Brief note for the specialist, posted to the Foundations of Mathematics and Proof Theory lists

Normalisation Without Cut EliminationAlessio GuglielmiI propose a possible notion of equivalence for proofs in classical logic, sort of a normal form for case analysis.25 February 2003

Subatomic LogicAlessio GuglielmiOne can unify classical and linear logic by using only two simple, linear, 'hyper' inference rules; they generate nice systems for all the fragments, where all rules are local. The various logics are determined by the algebra of their units, for example boolean algebra determines classical logic. We can prove cut elimination easily and once and for all in the tworule system, and the procedure scales down to all the derived fragments.21 November 2002

On Lafont's CounterexampleAlessio GuglielmiLafont's counterexample shows why cut elimination in the sequent calculus of classical logic is not confluent. I show here that the counterexample doesn't work in the calculus of structures.1 November 2002

RecipeAlessio GuglielmiA family of tautologies that hold in most logics can be used, following a simple recipe, to produce deductive systems where all rules are local, including cut.27 October 2002

Goodness, Perfection and MiraclesAlessio GuglielmiI argue about three properties closely related to cut elimination and interpolation theorems. 18 October 2002

Freedom from BureaucracyFF15 February 1963
7Mailing List
There is a very friendly mailing list devoted to deep inference, proof nets, structads, the calculus of structures and other amphibians of structural proof theory, named Frogs. Join it!
8Grants
These are the current and recent grants I am aware of, regarding deep inference:

Efficient and Natural Proof Systems2013–2016. Threeyear EPSRC research project at University of Bath. 756,061 GBP (full economic costing, including indexation and a research studentship funded by the University of Bath). Principal investigator is Alessio Guglielmi, coinvestigator is Guy McCusker.

Sharing and Sequentiality in Proof Systems with Locality2012–2014. Twoyear Royal Society International Exchanges Scheme. Exchange programme between University of Bath and Università di Torino. The two sides get 11,960 GBP. Principal investigators: Alessio Guglielmi and Luca Roversi.

Extending the Realm of the CurryHoward Correspondence2011–2012. FrenchSwiss Academic Research Collaboration Programme (PAI Germaine De Stael). Exchange programme between INRIA Futurs and IAM, Universität Bern. The two sides get around 4,300 EUR each. Principal investigators: Lutz Straßburger and Kai Brünnler.

Structural and Computational Proof Theory (Structural)2010–2012. ANR—Programme Blanc International/FWF 2010. Threeyear project at PPS, LIX, Innsbruck and Vienna. The project gets 441,229 EUR, out of a total cost in France of 2,032,556 EUR, from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche and it gets 291,577 EUR from the FWF. Coordinator and principal investigator is Michel Parigot.

REDO: Redesigning Logical Syntax2009–2010. INRIA—Action de Recherche Collaborative. Twoyear project of the teams Calligramme/Démosthène and Parsifal (INRIA) and the Computer Science Department of the University of Bath. The project gets 80,000 EUR. Principal investigators are Alessio Guglielmi, François Lamarche and Lutz Straßburger (coordinator).

Identity and Geometric Essence of Proofs (Démosthène)ANR—Chaire d’excellence 2008–2010. Twoyear project at LORIA. The project gets about 355,000 EUR from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, out of a total cost of 750,448 EUR, the rest of which is covered by INRIA. Principal investigator is Alessio Guglielmi.

Complexity and NonDeterminism in Deep Inference2007–2008. 17 month project at University of Bath. 118,072 GBP, out of a total cost of 147,591 GBP, from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Principal investigator is Alessio Guglielmi, coinvestigator is Paola Bruscoli.

Deep Inference and the Essence of Proofs2007–2008. FrenchSwiss Academic Research Collaboration Programme (PAI Germaine De Stael). Exchange programme between INRIA Futurs and IAM, Universität Bern. The two sides get around 5,000 EUR each. Principal investigators: Lutz Straßburger and Kai Brünnler.

The Realm of Cut Elimination2007–2008. FrenchAustrian Academic Research Collaboration Programme (PAI Amadeus). Exchange programme between INRIA Futurs and Theory and Logic Group, Technische Universität Wien. The two sides get around 5,000 EUR each. Principal investigators: Lutz Straßburger and Agata Ciabattoni.

Theory and Application of Deep Inference (Infer)ANR—Programme Blanc 2006. Threeyear project at LIX, LORIA and PPS. The project gets 230,400 EUR, out of a total cost of 1,280,598 EUR, from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche. Coordinator and principal investigator is Lutz Straßburger, other principal investigators are François Lamarche and Michel Parigot.

Analyticity and Proof Search for Modal Logics in Deep Inference2006–2008. BritishGerman Academic Research Collaboration Programme. Twoyear exchange programme between the University of Bath and the Technische Universität Dresden. Bath gets 2,650 GBP from the British Council (principal investigator Alessio Guglielmi) and Dresden gets 5,694 EUR from the German Academic Exchange Service (principal investigator Steffen Hölldobler).

New Deductive Systems, Normalisation Methods and Semantics for Deep Inference2006–2007. Alliance—FrancoBritish Partnership Programme. Twoyear exchange programme between the University of Bath and the PPS group in Paris. Bath gets 4,300 GBP from the British Council (principal investigator Alessio Guglielmi) and PPS gets 6,250 EUR from the French MAE and the Ministry of Research (principal investigator Michel Parigot).
I did not indicate individual travel grants.
9Beans
 Journals and chapters in books36


In press 

2 

Journal of Logic and Computation (2) 
2014 

2 

Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics, Logical Methods in Computer Science 
2013 

2 

Logical Methods in Computer Science, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 
2012 

4 

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (3), Applied Categorical Structures 
2011 

5 

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, Journal of Logic and Computation, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Logical Methods in Computer Science, Logic without Frontiers (Festschrift for Walter Alexandre Carnielli) 
2009 

6 

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Journal of Logic and Computation, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Information and Computation, Archive for Mathematical Logic 
2008 

3 

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Logical Methods in Computer Science, Journal of Logic and Computation 
2007 

5 

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Studia Logica, Journal of Logic and Computation, Theory and Applications of Categories (2) 
2006 

5 

Studia Logica, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Logical Methods in Computer Science (2), Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 
2003 

2 

Logic Journal of the IGPL, Theoretical Computer Science 
 Conferences55


2014 

4 

CSLLICS (3), AiML 
2013 

6 

FoSSaCS, LICS, RTA, CSL (2), LPAR 
2012 

4 

CiE, AiML (2), JELIA 
2011 

3 

TLCA, Tableaux, CSL 
2010 

7 

LPAR (2), RTA, LICS, CiE, AiML (2) 
2009 

5 

Tableaux (2), WoLLIC, TLCA, TbiLLC 
2008 

3 

LATA, LPAR, AiML 
2007 

1 

RTA 
2006 

4 

AiML, CiE, LPAR (2) 
2005 

5 

WoLLIC, Logica Universalis, TLCA, AIA, LICS 
2004 

4 

AiML, CSL (2), ISCIS 
2003 

4 

CSL, FOL75, WoLLIC (2, one of which invited talk) 
2002 

3 

LPAR (2), ICLP 
2001 

2 

LPAR, CSL 
 Habilitation theses2


2011 

1 

Lutz Straßburger 
2010 

1 

Kai Brünnler 
 PhD theses8


2013 

2 

Nicolas Guenot, Anupam Das 
2011 

1 

Linda Postniece 
2009 

1 

Tom Gundersen 
2006 

2 

Richard McKinley, Ozan Kahramanoğulları 
2003 

2 

Kai Brünnler, Lutz Straßburger 
 MSc theses4


2007 

1 

Benjamin Robert Horsfall 
2005 

1 

Robert Hein 
2004 

1 

Phiniki Stouppa 
2001 

1 

Alwen Tiu 
10Events
Deep inference was one of the main attractions at the following international events:
Deep inference and the calculus of structures have been taught at
11TeX Macros and BibTeX database
The Virginia Lake LaTeX macros help typing deep inference structures, derivations and atomic flows.
The DedStraker TeX macros are now obsolete.
This BibTeX database of deepinference publications is kept updated.
30.7.2014Alessio Guglielmiemail