MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296691843 · doi:10.1145/3290322

Sound and complete bidirectional typechecking for higher-rank polymorphism with existentials and indexed types

2019· preprint· en· W2296691843 on OpenAlexaff
Neelakantan R. Krishnaswami

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageType inferenceType theoryDependent typeHaskellSoundnessMathematical proofSubtypingCombinatory logicScalaType (biology)Theoretical computer scienceLambda calculusInferenceFunctional programmingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceJava

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bidirectional typechecking, in which terms either synthesize a type or are checked against a known type, has become popular for its applicability to a variety of type systems, its error reporting, and its ease of implementation. Following principles from proof theory, bidirectional typing can be applied to many type constructs. The principles underlying a bidirectional approach to indexed types (generalized algebraic datatypes) are less clear. Building on proof-theoretic treatments of equality, we give a declarative specification of typing based on focalization. This approach permits declarative rules for coverage of pattern matching, as well as support for first-class existential types using a focalized subtyping judgment. We use refinement types to avoid explicitly passing equality proofs in our term syntax, making our calculus similar to languages such as Haskell and OCaml. We also extend the declarative specification with an explicit rules for deducing when a type is principal, permitting us to give a complete declarative specification for a rich type system with significant type inference. We also give a set of algorithmic typing rules, and prove that it is sound and complete with respect to the declarative system. The proof requires a number of technical innovations, including proving soundness and completeness in a mutually recursive fashion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207