It has recently been shown that cut-free deep inference systems exhibit an exponential speed-up over cut-free sequent systems, in terms of proof size. While this is good for proof complexity, there remains the problem of typically high proof search non-determinism induced by the deep inference methodology: the higher the depth of inference, the higher the non-determinism. In this work we improve on the proof search side by demonstrating that, for propositional logic, the same exponential speed-up in proof size can be obtained in bounded-depth cut-free systems. These systems retain the top-down symmetry of deep inference, but can otherwise be designed at the same depth level of sequent systems. As a result the non-determinism arising from the choice of rules at each stage of a proof is smaller than that of unbounded deep inference, while still giving access to the short proofs of deep inference.


Inference Rule Propositional Logic Proof System Sequent Calculus Proof Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brünnler, K.: Deep Inference and Symmetry in Classical Proofs. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2004), zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brünnler, K.: Deep inference and its normal form of derivations. In: Beckmann, A., Berger, U., Löwe, B., Tucker, J.V. (eds.) CIE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3988, pp. 65–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruscoli, P., Guglielmi, A.: On the proof complexity of deep inference. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(2), article 14, 1–34 (2009), MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruscoli, P., Guglielmi, A., Gundersen, T., Parigot, M.: Quasipolynomial normalisation in deep inference via atomic flows and threshold formulae (2009), (submitted)
  5. 5.
    Clote, P., Kranakis, E.: Boolean Functions and Computation Models. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(1), 36–50 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guglielmi, A., Gundersen, T.: Normalisation control in deep inference via atomic flows. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4(1:9), 1–36 (2008), MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guglielmi, A., Gundersen, T., Parigot, M.: A proof calculus which reduces syntactic bureaucracy. In: Lynch, C. (ed.) RTA 2010. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 6, pp. 135–150. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2010),
  9. 9.
    Straßburger, L.: From deep inference to proof nets. In: Bruscoli, P., Lamarche, F., Stewart, C. (eds.) Structures and Deduction. pp. 2–18. Technische Universität Dresden, iCALP Workshop (2005) ISSN 1430-211X,
  10. 10.
    Straßburger, L.: Extension without cut (2009), (submitted)
  11. 11.
    Troelstra, A., Schwichtenberg, H.: Basic Proof Theory. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anupam Das
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BathUK

Personalised recommendations