Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:23:11.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open-graphs and monoidal theories†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

LUCAS DIXON  and
ALEKS KISSINGER
LUCAS DIXON
Affiliation:
Google, New York, U.S.A. and University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom Email: lucas.dixon@ed.ac.uk
ALEKS KISSINGER
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Email: aleks0@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

String diagrams are a powerful tool for reasoning about physical processes, logic circuits, tensor networks and many other compositional structures. The distinguishing feature of these diagrams is that edges need not be connected to vertices at both ends, and these unconnected ends can be interpreted as the inputs and outputs of a diagram. In this paper, we give a concrete construction for string diagrams using a special kind of typed graph called an open-graph. While the category of open-graphs is not itself adhesive, we introduce the notion of a selective adhesive functor, and show that such a functor embeds the category of open-graphs into the ambient adhesive category of typed graphs. Using this functor, the category of open-graphs inherits ‘enough adhesivity’ from the category of typed graphs to perform double-pushout (DPO) graph rewriting. A salient feature of our theory is that it ensures rewrite systems are ‘type safe’ in the sense that rewriting respects the inputs and outputs. This formalism lets us safely encode the interesting structure of a computational model, such as evaluation dynamics, with succinct, explicit rewrite rules, while the graphical representation absorbs many of the tedious details. Although topological formalisms exist for string diagrams, our construction is discrete and finitary, and enjoys decidable algorithms for composition and rewriting. We also show how open-graphs can be parameterised by graphical signatures, which are similar to the monoidal signatures of Joyal and Street, and define types for vertices in the diagrammatic language and constraints on how they can be connected. Using typed open-graphs, we can construct free symmetric monoidal categories, PROPs and more general monoidal theories. Thus, open-graphs give us a tool for mechanised reasoning in monoidal categories.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 23 , Special Issue 2: Developments In Computational Models 2010 , April 2013 , pp. 308 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This research was funded by EPSRC grant EPE/005713/1 and a Clarendon Studentship.

References

Adamek, J., Herrlich, H. and Strecker, G. E. (2009) Abstract and Concrete Categories: The Joy of Cats, Dover.Google Scholar
Appelgate, H., Barr, M., Beck, J., Lawvere, F., Linton, F., Manes, E., Tierney, M. and Ulmer, F. (1969) Distributive laws. In: Seminar on Triples and Categorical Homology Theory. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics 80 119–140.Google Scholar
Baader, F. and Nipkow, T. (1998) Term rewriting and all that, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldan, P., Corradini, A. and König, B. (2008) Unfolding graph transformation systems: Theory and applications to verification. In: Degano, P., de Nicola, R. and Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models: Essays Dedicated to Ugo Montanari on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5065 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coecke, B. and Duncan, R. (2008) Interacting quantum observables. In: Aceto, L.et al. (eds.) Automata, Languages and Programming: Proceedings ICALP 2008. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5126 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coecke, B. and Duncan, R. (2009) Interacting quantum observables: Categorical algebra and diagrammatics. arXiv:0906.4725v1 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
Coecke, B. and Kissinger, A. (2010) The compositional structure of multipartite quantum entanglement. arXiv:1002.2540v2 [quant-ph].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danos, V. and Laneve, C. (2004) Formal molecular biology. Theoretical Computer Science 325 (1)69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, L. and Duncan, R. (2009) Graphical reasoning in compact closed categories for quantum computation. AMAI 56 (1)20.Google Scholar
Dixon, L., Duncan, R. and Kissinger, A. (2010) Open graphs and computational reasoning. In: Proceedings Sixth Workshop on Developments in Computational Models: Causality, Computation, and Physics. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 26 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U. and Taentzer, G. (2006) Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, EATCS Series, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Pfender, M. and Schneider, H. J. (1973) Graph-grammars: An algebraic approach. In: 14th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, IEEE 167–180.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1996) Proof-nets: The parallel syntax for proof-theory. In: Logic and Algebra, Marcel Dekker 97–124.Google Scholar
Grandis, M. (2009) Directed Algebraic Topology: Models of Non-Reversible Worlds, New Mathematical Monographs, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyal, A. and Street, R. (1991) The geometry of tensor calculus I. Advances in Mathematics 88 55–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knuth, D. E. and Bendix, P. B. (1970) Simple word problems in universal algebras. In: Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, Pergamon Press 263–297.Google Scholar
Krishnan, S. (2009) A convenient category of locally preordered spaces. Applied Categorical Structures 17 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lack, S. (2004) Composing props. Theory and Applications of Categories 13 (9)147–163.Google Scholar
Lack, S. and Sobocinski, P. (2005) Adhesive and quasiadhesive categories. Theoretical Informatics and Applications 39 (2)522–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Y. (1990) Interaction nets. In POPL '90: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN–SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Y. (2003) Towards an algebraic theory of boolean circuits. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 184 (2-3)257–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Y. (2010) Diagram rewriting and operads. In: Lecture Notes from the Thematic school: Operads CIRM, Luminy (Marseille) 20–25 April 2009.Google Scholar
Lafont, Y. and Rannou, P. (2008) Diagram rewriting for orthogonal matrices: A study of critical peaks. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) Rewriting Techniques and Applications: Proceedings RTA'08. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5117 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, R. (2006) Pure bigraphs: Structure and dynamics. Information and computation 204 (1)60–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R. (1971) Applications of negative dimensional tensors. In: Welsh, D. (ed.) Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications, Academic Press 221–244.Google Scholar
Prange, U., Ehrig, H. and Lambers, L. (2008) Construction and properties of adhesive and weak adhesive high-level replacement categories. Applications of Categorical Structures 16 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinger, P. (2009) A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories. In: Coecke, B. (ed.) New Structures for Physics. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Physics 813 275–337.Google Scholar