A proof-theoretic characterization of logical languages that form suitable bases for Prolog-like programming languages is provided. This characterization is based on the principle that the declarative meaning of a logic program, provided by provability in a logical system, should coincide with its operational meaning, provided by interpreting logical connectives as simple and fixed search instructions. The operational semantics is formalized by the identification of a class of cut-free sequent proofs called uniform proofs. A uniform proof is one that can be found by a goal-directed search that respects the interpretation of the logical connectives as search instructions. The concept of a uniform proof is used to define the notion of an abstract logic programming language, and it is shown that first-order and higherorder Horn clauses with classical provability are examples of such a language. Horn clauses are then generalized to hereditary Harrop formulas and it is shown that first-order and higher-order versions of this new class of formulas are also abstract logic programming languages if the inference rules are those of either intuitionistic or minimal logic. The programming language significance of the various generalizations to first-order Horn clauses is briefly discussed.

International audienceFormal systems that describe computations over syntactic structures occur frequently in computer science. Logic programming provides a natural framework for encoding and animating such systems. However, these systems often embody variable binding, a notion that must be treated carefully at a computational level. This book aims to show that a programming language based on a simply typed version of higher-order logic provides an elegant and declarative means for realizing such a treatment. Three broad topics are covered in pursuit of this goal. First, a proof-theoretic framework that supports a general view of logic programming is identified. Second, an actual language called λProlog is developed by applying this view to a higher-order logic. Finally, a methodology for computing with specifications is exposed by showing how several computations over formal objects such as logical formulas, functional programs, λ-terms, and π-calculus expressions can be encoded in λProlog

Bedwyr is a generalization of logic programming that allows model checking directly on syntactic expressions possibly containing bindings. This system, written in OCaml, is a direct implementation of two recent advances in the theory of proof search. The first is centered on the fact that both finite success and finite failure can be captured in the sequent calculus by incorporating inference rules for definitions that allow fixed points to be explored. As a result, proof search in such a sequent calculus can capture simple model checking problems as well as may and must behavior in operational semantics. The second is that higherorder abstract syntax is directly supported using term-level λ-binders and the ∇ quantifier. These features allow reasoning directly on expressions containing bound variables. FoundationsThe logical foundation of Bedwyr is the logic called LINC [12], an acronym for "lambda, induction, nabla, and co-induction" that is an enumeration of its major components. LINC extends intuitionistic logic in two directions.Fixed points via definitions. Clauses such as A △

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 specif ication 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 λ-terms via definitions of atomic judgments, contains inference rules for induction and coinduction, 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 242 A. Gacek et al.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.