A simple soundness proof for dependent object types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dependent Object Types (DOT) is intended to be a core calculus for modelling Scala. Its distinguishing feature is abstract type members, fields in objects that hold types rather than values. Proving soundness of DOT has been surprisingly challenging, and existing proofs are complicated, and reason about multiple concepts at the same time (e.g. types, values, evaluation). To serve as a core calculus for Scala, DOT should be easy to experiment with and extend, and therefore its soundness proof needs to be easy to modify. This paper presents a simple and modular proof strategy for reasoning in DOT. The strategy separates reasoning about types from other concerns. It is centred around a theorem that connects the full DOT type system to a restricted variant in which the challenges and paradoxes caused by abstract type members are eliminated. Almost all reasoning in the proof is done in the intuitive world of this restricted type system. Once we have the necessary results about types, we observe that the other aspects of DOT are mostly standard and can be incorporated into a soundness proof using familiar techniques known from other calculi.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".