CoLF Logic Programming as Infinitary Proof Exploration

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12302
• Title: CoLF Logic Programming as Infinitary Proof Exploration
• Authors: Zhibo Chen (Carnegie Mellon University), Frank Pfenning (Carnegie Mellon University)
• Classification: cs.LO (Logic in Computer Science)
• Conference: LFMTP 2025 (International Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages: Theory and Practice)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12302

Abstract

This paper explores the implementation of "computation as proof construction" on the first-order fragment of CoLF^ω (denoted CoLF^ω_1), which already incorporates infinite objects and proofs. The core idea interprets logical variables as communication channels and computation as concurrent message passing. This concept is realized through a concrete compiler implementation that compiles CoLF^ω_1 to Sax—a proof-theoretically inspired parallel programming language based on proof reduction in semi-axiomatic sequent calculus.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Context

1. Limitations of Traditional Logical Frameworks: Early logical frameworks such as Automath and LF, while successfully implementing the "computation as proof construction" paradigm, do not directly support the expression of infinite objects or proofs.
2. Issues with Existing Implementations: Backtracking-based proof search faces multiple difficulties in infinite settings:
   • Termination problems when inputs are infinite
   • Interaction problems between infinite objects and backtracking (may never explicitly fail)
   • Unification algorithms guarantee termination only on rational (cyclic) terms, but many application objects or proofs are non-rational

Research Motivation

1. Supporting Infinite Computation: A dynamic semantics is needed that can incrementally compute outputs from inputs, similar to transducers between streams.
2. Avoiding Backtracking: Static uniqueness checking ensures that each unique input has at most one proof, eliminating the need for backtracking.
3. Parallelization: Exploiting communication between shared variables to implement and-parallelism across multiple premises.

Core Contributions

1. Proposed CoLF^ω_1 Logic Programming Language: Supports proofs with infinite term representations, backtracking-free proof construction, and parallel premise evaluation using shared logical variables for communication.
2. Innovative Computational Model: Interprets logical variables as communication channels and computation as concurrent message passing.
3. Compiler Implementation: A concrete compiler from CoLF^ω_1 to Sax.
4. Rich Example Systems: Implementations of complex relationships including stream processing, Fibonacci sequences, and integration operations.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

This paper investigates how to implement logic programming in logical frameworks supporting infinite objects. The specific task is:

• Input: CoLF^ω_1 program specification
• Output: Infinite structures (such as streams) computed through concurrent message passing
• Constraints: Backtracking-free, supporting parallel computation, ensuring uniqueness

Core Technical Architecture

1. Type System

conat: cotype.          % coinductive natural numbers type
z: conat.               % zero constructor
s: conat -> conat.      % successor constructor

stream: cotype.         % stream type
cons: conat -> stream -> stream.  % stream constructor

2. Relation Definition and Pattern Declaration

add: conat -> conat -> conat -> cotype. %mode add + + -.
add_z : add z A A.
add_s : add A B C -> add (s A) B (s C).

3. Computational Semantics

Program behavior is defined through the following operations:

• Channel Operations: Each parameter is treated as a communication channel, with pattern declarations specifying input (+) or output (-) channels.
• Read/Write Operations: Programs can read values from input channels and write values to output channels.
• Channel Forwarding: Directly forward input channels to output channels.
• Parallel Generation: Allocate new channels and spawn new processes.

Technical Innovations

1. Backtracking-Free Guarantee

Static uniqueness checking ensures that at each program point there is at most one possible action, eliminating the need for backtracking in traditional logic programming.

2. Concurrent Execution Model

mult_s : mult A B C -> add B C D -> mult (s A) B D.

In the above multiplication definition, the two premises mult A B C and add B C D can be evaluated in parallel, communicating through shared variable C.

3. Incremental Computation

Supports lazy evaluation; when output D is gradually revealed, the first B steps do not need to evaluate mult A B C because C remains unchanged.

Experimental Setup

Test Cases

The paper validates the method's effectiveness through multiple concrete examples:

1. Basic Stream Operations:
   • repeat n: Stream infinitely repeating digit n
   • up n: Stream incrementing from n
2. Complex Relations:
   • Coinductive natural number addition
   • Pointwise stream addition
   • Fibonacci sequence generation
3. Advanced Operations:
   • Integration operations (cumulative sum)
   • Even stream generation

Implementation Details

• Compiler generates Sax code from CoLF^ω_1 source code
• Evaluation stops after reaching predetermined depth
• Supports message passing between concurrent processes

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Basic Stream Generation

up z execution result:
(cons z
(cons (s z)
(cons (s (s z))
(cons (s (s (s z)))
(cons (s (s (s (s z)))) ...)))))

2. Infinite Object Handling

omega : conat = s omega.
main : stream = repeat omega.

Result:
(cons (s (s (s (s ...))))
(cons (s (s (s ...)))
(cons (s (s ...))
(cons (s ...)
(cons ...)))))

3. Complex Computation Verification

Fibonacci sequence:

(cons z
(cons (s z)
(cons (s z)
(cons (s (s z))
(cons (s (s (s z)))
(cons (s (s (s (s (s z)))))
(cons (s (s (s (s (s (s (s (s z)))))))) ...)))))))

Integration operation result:

(cons z
(cons (s z)
(cons (s (s (s z)))
(cons (s (s (s (s (s (s z))))))
(cons (s (s (s (s (s (s (s (s (s (s z)))))))))) ...)))))

Experimental Findings

1. Parallelism Verification: Multiple premises can indeed execute in parallel with effective communication through shared variables.
2. Infinite Structure Handling: Successfully handles infinite recursive definitions, such as ω = s ω.
3. Incremental Computation: Validates the effectiveness of lazy evaluation and incremental output.

Related Work

Traditional Logical Frameworks

• LF Series: Harper et al.'s LF framework, supporting basic proof checking
• λ-Prolog/Elf: Computation as proof construction based on backward chaining
• LolliMon/Celf: Frameworks integrating forward chaining

Advantages Over Related Work

1. Infinite Support: First to directly support infinite objects and proofs in logical frameworks
2. Concurrent Model: Innovative concurrent message-passing computational model
3. Backtracking-Free: Eliminates backtracking through static analysis

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Successfully implemented CoLF^ω_1, a logic programming language supporting infinite objects
2. Validated the feasibility of interpreting logical variables as communication channels
3. Demonstrated the effectiveness of the concurrent message-passing model in logic programming

Limitations

1. Currently Supports Only Coinductive Fragment: Does not support mixed inductive and coinductive cases
2. First-Order Restriction: Currently implements only the first-order fragment, lacking higher-order term support
3. Type System Limitations: Does not support dependent type terms (only supported at the proof object level)

Future Directions

1. Extension to Full CoLF^ω: Support higher-order terms and dependent type terms
2. Mixed Inductive-Coinductive: Support mixing of inductive and coinductive types
3. Formal Semantics: Provide complete formalization of the compilation process

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Theoretical Innovation: First to introduce infinite objects into logic programming frameworks, with significant theoretical value
2. Complete Implementation: Provides a complete path from theory to implementation, including compiler implementation
3. Rich Examples: Clearly demonstrates the method's practicality through multiple concrete examples
4. Novel Concurrent Model: Organically combines logic programming with concurrent computation

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: As a progress report, lacks formal semantic definitions and correctness proofs
2. Missing Performance Analysis: No performance benchmarks or complexity analysis provided
3. Limited Scope: Current version has restricted functionality; further work needed for practical deployment

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Introduces new research directions to the logic programming field
2. Practical Value: Provides new programming paradigms for handling infinite data structures
3. Reproducibility: Provides concrete implementation facilitating verification and extension

Applicable Scenarios

1. Stream Processing Systems: Suitable for applications processing infinite data streams
2. Symbolic Computation: Computation requiring handling of infinite mathematical objects
3. Concurrent System Modeling: Can be used for modeling and verifying concurrent system behavior

References

The paper cites important literature from logical frameworks, proof theory, and parallel computation, including:

• de Bruijn's Automath system
• Harper et al.'s LF framework
• Miller et al.'s λ-Prolog
• DeYoung et al.'s semi-axiomatic sequent calculus

Overall Assessment: This is an innovative theoretical computer science paper that introduces infinite object support to logical frameworks for the first time and proposes a novel concurrent computational model. While as a progress report it has room for improvement in theoretical depth, its core ideas and preliminary implementation open new research directions in this field.