BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Andrew Gacek

Andrew Gacek contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceProgramming Languages

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

Reasoning About Higher-Order Relational Specifications

The logic of hereditary Harrop formulas (HH) has proven useful for specifying a wide range of formal systems. This logic includes a form of hypothetical judgment that leads to dynamically changing sets of assumptions and that is key to encoding side conditions and contexts that occur frequently in structural operational semantics (SOS) style presentations. Specifications are often useful in reasoning about the systems they describe. The Abella theorem prover supports such reasoning by explicitly embedding the specification logic within a rich reasoning logic; specifications are then reasoned about through this embedding. However, realizing an induction principle in the face of dynamically changing assumption sets is nontrivial and the original Abella system uses only a subset of the HH specification logic for this reason. We develop a method here for supporting inductive reasoning over all of HH. Our approach takes advantage of a focusing property of HH to isolate the use of an assumption and the ability to finitely characterize the structure of any such assumption in the reasoning logic. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these ideas via several specification and meta-theoretic reasoning examples that have been implemented in an extended version of Abella.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A two-level logic approach to reasoning about computations

Relational descriptions have been used in formalizing diverse computational notions, including, for example, operational semantics, typing, and acceptance by non-deterministic machines. We therefore propose a (restricted) logical theory over relations as a language for specifying such notions. Our specification logic is further characterized by an ability to explicitly treat binding in object languages. Once such a logic is fixed, a natural next question is how we might prove theorems about specifications written in it. We propose to use a second logic, called a reasoning logic, for this purpose. A satisfactory reasoning logic should be able to completely encode the specification logic. Associated with the specification logic are various notions of binding: for quantifiers within formulas, for eigenvariables within sequents, and for abstractions within terms. To provide a natural treatment of these aspects, the reasoning logic must encode binding structures as well as their associated notions of scope, free and bound variables, and capture-avoiding substitution. Further, to support arguments about provability, the reasoning logic should possess strong mechanisms for constructing proofs by induction and co-induction. We provide these capabilities here by using a logic called G which represents relations over lambda-terms via definitions of atomic judgments, contains inference rules for induction and co-induction, and includes a special generic quantifier. We show how provability in the specification logic can be transparently encoded in G. We also describe an interactive theorem prover called Abella that implements G and this two-level logic approach and we present several examples that demonstrate the efficacy of Abella in reasoning about computations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Nominal Abstraction

Recursive relational specifications are commonly used to describe the computational structure of formal systems. Recent research in proof theory has identified two features that facilitate direct, logic-based reasoning about such descriptions: the interpretation of atomic judgments through recursive definitions and an encoding of binding constructs via generic judgments. However, logics encompassing these two features do not currently allow for the definition of relations that embody dynamic aspects related to binding, a capability needed in many reasoning tasks. We propose a new relation between terms called nominal abstraction as a means for overcoming this deficiency. We incorporate nominal abstraction into a rich logic also including definitions, generic quantification, induction, and co-induction that we then prove to be consistent. We present examples to show that this logic can provide elegant treatments of binding contexts that appear in many proofs, such as those establishing properties of typing calculi and of arbitrarily cascading substitutions that play a role in reducibility arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Relating Nominal and Higher-order Abstract Syntax Specifications

Nominal abstract syntax and higher-order abstract syntax provide a means for describing binding structure which is higher-level than traditional techniques. These approaches have spawned two different communities which have developed along similar lines but with subtle differences that make them difficult to relate. The nominal abstract syntax community has devices like names, freshness, name-abstractions with variable capture, and the new-quantifier, whereas the higher-order abstract syntax community has devices like lambda-binders, lambda-conversion, raising, and the nabla-quantifier. This paper aims to unify these communities and provide a concrete correspondence between their different devices. In particular, we develop a semantics-preserving translation from alpha-Prolog, a nominal abstract syntax based logic programming language, to G-, a higher-order abstract syntax based logic programming language. We also discuss higher-order judgments, a common and powerful tool for specifications with higher-order abstract syntax, and we show how these can be incorporated into G-. This establishes G- as a language with the power of higher-order abstract syntax, the fine-grained variable control of nominal specifications, and the desirable properties of higher-order judgments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access