(Mathematical) Logic for Systems Biology (Invited Paper)

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9859)


We advocates here the use of (mathematical) logic for systems biology, as a unified framework well suited for both modeling the dynamic behaviour of biological systems, expressing properties of them, and verifying these properties. The potential candidate logics should have a traditional proof theoretic pedigree (including a sequent calculus presentation enjoying cut-elimination and focusing), and should come with (certified) proof tools. Beyond providing a reliable framework, this allows the adequate encodings of our biological systems. We present two candidate logics (two modal extensions of linear logic, called HyLL and SELL), along with biological examples. The examples we have considered so far are very simple ones - coming with completely formal (interactive) proofs in Coq. Future works includes using automatic provers, which would extend existing automatic provers for linear logic. This should enable us to specify and study more realistic examples in systems biology, biomedicine (diagnosis and prognosis), and eventually neuroscience.


Inference Rule Proof System Joint Work Linear Logic Sequent Calculus 
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.


  1. 1.
    Andreoli, J.: Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. J. Log. Comput. 2(3), 297–347 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baelde, D.: Least and greatest fixed points in linear logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 13(1), 2 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caires, L., Perez, J., Pfenning, F.: Logic-based domain-aware session types (2014) (submitted)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campagna, D., Piazza, C.: Hybrid automata in systems biology: how far can we go? Electron. Notes TCS 229(1), 93–108 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danos, V.: Agile modelling of cellular signalling (invited paper). In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Structural Operational Semantics (SOS). Electronic Notes in TCS, vol. 229, pp. 3–10. Elsevier (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danos, V., Joinet, J.B., Schellinx, H.: The structure of exponentials: uncovering the dynamics of linear logic proofs. In: Mundici, D., Gottlob, G., Leitsch, A. (eds.) KGC 1993. LNCS, vol. 713, pp. 159–171. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Despeyroux, J., Chaudhuri, K.: A hybrid linear logic for constrained transition systems. In: Post-Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, vol. 26, pp. 150–168. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Despeyroux, J., Olarte, C., Pimentel, E.: Hybrid and subexponential linear logics. In: Proceedings of the 11th workshop on Logical and Semantic Frameworks, with Applications (LSFA) (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fages, F., Soliman, S.: Formal cell biology in biocham. In: Bernardo, M., Degano, P., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5016, pp. 54–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentzen, G.: Investigations into logical deductions, 1935. In: Szabo, M.E. (ed.) The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, pp. 68–131. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic. TCS 50, 1–102 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Maria, E., Despeyroux, J., Felty, A.P.: A logical framework for systems biology. In: Fages, F., Piazza, C. (eds.) FMMB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8738, pp. 136–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, D., Pimentel, E.: A formal framework for specifying sequent calculus proof systems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 474, 98–116 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nigam, V., Olarte, C., Pimentel, E.: A general proof system for modalities in concurrent constraint programming. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013 – Concurrency Theory. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nigam, V., Pimentel, E., Reis, G.: Specifying proof systems in linear logic with subexponentials. Electron. Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci. 269, 109–123 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olarte, C., Chiarugi, D., Falaschi, M., Hermith, D.: A proof theoretic view of spatial and temporal dependencies in biochemical systems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. (TCS) 641, 25–42 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olarte, C., Pimentel, E., Nigam, V.: Subexponential concurrent constraint programming. TCS 606, 98–120 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phillips, A., Cardelli, L.: A correct abstract machine for the stochastic pi-calculus. In: BioConcur: Workshop on Concurrent Models in Molecular Biology. Electronic Notes in TCS (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reed, J.: Hybridizing a logical framework. In: International Workshop on Hybrid Logic (HyLo), Seattle, USA, August 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inria and CNRS, I3SSophia-AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations