A sequent calculus with procedure calls
In this paper, we extend the sequent calculus LKF into a calculus LK(T), allowing calls to a decision procedure. We prove cut-elimination of LK(T).
Discover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Stéphane Lengrand contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
In this paper, we extend the sequent calculus LKF into a calculus LK(T), allowing calls to a decision procedure. We prove cut-elimination of LK(T).
In this paper we relate different formulations of the DPLL(T) procedure. The first formulation is based on a system of rewrite rules, which we denote DPLL(T). The second formulation is an inference system of, which we denote LKDPLL(T). The third formulation is the application of a standard proof-search mechanism in a sequent calculus LKp(T) introduced here. We formalise an encoding from DPLL(T) to LKDPLL(T) that was, to our knowledge, never explicitly given and, in the case where DPLL(T) is extended with backjumping and Lemma learning, never even implicitly given. We also formalise an encoding from LKDPLL(T) to LKp(T), building on Ivan Gazeau's previous work: we extend his work in that we handle the "-modulo-Theory" aspect of SAT-modulo-theory, by extending the sequent calculus to allow calls to a theory solver (seen as a blackbox). We also extend his work in that we handle advanced features of DPLL such as backjumping and Lemma learning, etc. Finally, we re fine the approach by starting to formalise quantitative aspects of the simulations: the complexity is preserved (number of steps to build complete proofs). Other aspects remain to be formalised (non-determinism of the search / width of search space).