Advertisement

Quantomatic: A Proof Assistant for Diagrammatic Reasoning

  • Aleks Kissinger
  • Vladimir ZamdzhievEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9195)

Abstract

Monoidal algebraic structures consist of operations that can have multiple outputs as well as multiple inputs, which have applications in many areas including categorical algebra, programming language semantics, representation theory, algebraic quantum information, and quantum groups. String diagrams provide a convenient graphical syntax for reasoning formally about such structures, while avoiding many of the technical challenges of a term-based approach. Quantomatic is a tool that supports the (semi-)automatic construction of equational proofs using string diagrams. We briefly outline the theoretical basis of Quantomatic’s rewriting engine, then give an overview of the core features and architecture and give a simple example project that computes normal forms for commutative bialgebras.

Notes

Acknowledgements

In addition to the two authors, Quantomatic has received major contributions from Alex Merry, Lucas Dixon, and Ross Duncan. We would also like to thank David Quick, Benjamin Frot, Fabio Zennaro, Krzysztof Bar, Gudmund Grov, Yuhui Lin, Matvey Soloviev, Song Zhang, and Michael Bradley for their contributions and gratefully acknowledge financial support from EPSRC, the Scatcherd European Scholarship, and the John Templeton Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., Coecke, B.: A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In: LICS 2004, pp. 415–425. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baez, J.C., Erbele, J.: Categories in control (2014). arXiv:1405.6881
  3. 3.
    Bonchi, F., Sobociński, P., Zanasi, F.: Interacting bialgebras are frobenius. In: Muscholl, A. (ed.) FOSSACS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8412, pp. 351–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonchi, F., Sobociński, P., Zanasi, F.: Full abstraction for signal flow graphs. In: Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, S., Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M.: Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributed model of meaning. Linguist. Anal. 36, 1–4 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coecke, B., Duncan, R.: Interacting quantum observables: categorical algebra and diagrammatics. New J. Phys. 13(4), 043016 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danos, V., Feret, J., Fontana, W., Harmer, R., Krivine, J.: Abstracting the differential semantics of rule-based models: exact and automated model reduction. In: LICS (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dixon, L., Kissinger, A.: Open-graphs and monoidal theories. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 23, 308–359 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan, R., Lucas, M.: Verifying the steane code with quantomatic. In: Quantum Physics and Logic, vol. 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan, R., Perdrix, S.: Rewriting measurement-based quantum computations with generalised flow. In: Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) ICALP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6199, pp. 285–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grefenstette, E., Sadrzadeh, M.: Experimental support for a categorical compositional distributional model of meaning. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grov, G., Kissinger, A., Lin, Y.: Tinker, tailor, solver, proof. In: UITP (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hillebrand, A.: Quantum protocols involving multiparticle entanglement and their representations in the ZX-calculus. Master’s thesis, Oxford University (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johansson, M., Dixon, L., Bundy, A.: Conjecture synthesis for inductive theories. J. Autom. Reason. 47(3), 251–289 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joyal, A., Street, R.: The geometry of tensor calculus I. Adv. Math. 88(1), 55–112 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kissinger, A.: Pictures of Processes: Automated Graph Rewriting for Monoidal Categories and Applications to Quantum Computing. Ph.d. thesis, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kissinger, A.: Synthesising graphical theories (2012). arXiv:1202.6079
  18. 18.
    Kissinger, A., Merry, A., Soloviev, M.: Pattern graph rewrite systems. In: Proceedings of DCM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kissinger, A., Quick, D.: Tensors, !-graphs, and non-commutative quantum structures. In: QPL 2014, vol. 172 of EPTCS, pp. 56–67 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kissinger, A., Zamdzhiev, V.: !-graphs with trivial overlap are context-free. In: Proceedings Graphs as Models, GaM 2015, London, UK, pp. 11–12 , April 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melliès, P.-A.: Local states in string diagrams. In: Dowek, G. (ed.) RTA-TLCA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8560, pp. 334–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merry, A.: Reasoning with !-graphs. Ph.d. thesis, Oxford University (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Michaelson, G., Grov, G.: Reasoning about multi-process systems with the box calculus. In: Zsók, V., Horváth, Z., Plasmeijer, R. (eds.) CEFP. LNCS, vol. 7241, pp. 279–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penrose, R.: Applications of negative dimensional tensors. In: Dowling, T.A., Penrose, R. (eds.) Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications, pp. 221–244. Academic Press, San Diego (1971)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rensink, A.: The GROOVE simulator: a tool for state space generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schürr, A.: PROGRESS: a VHL-language based on graph grammars. In: Ehrig, H., Kreoswki, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 532. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sobociński, P.: Representations of petri net interactions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 554–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A graph transformation environment for modeling and validation of software. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations