MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952230935 · doi:10.1145/3341715

Mixed linear and non-linear recursive types

2019· article· en· W2952230935 on OpenAlexaff
Bert Lindenhovius, Michael Mislove, Vladimir Zamdzhiev

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchLeibniz-GemeinschaftSimons Institute for the Theory of Computing, University of California BerkeleyMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)Linear programmingLinear logicCategorical variableType theoryType (biology)Computer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a type system with mixed linear and non-linear recursive types called LNL-FPC (the linear/non-linear fixpoint calculus). The type system supports linear typing which enhances the safety properties of programs, but also supports non-linear typing as well which makes the type system more convenient for programming. Just like in FPC, we show that LNL-FPC supports type-level recursion which in turn induces term-level recursion. We also provide sound and computationally adequate categorical models for LNL-FPC which describe the categorical structure of the substructural operations of Intuitionistic Linear Logic at all non-linear types, including the recursive ones. In order to do so, we describe a new technique for solving recursive domain equations within the category CPO by constructing the solutions over pre-embeddings. The type system also enjoys implicit weakening and contraction rules which we are able to model by identifying the canonical comonoid structure of all non-linear types. We also show that the requirements of our abstract model are reasonable by constructing a large class of concrete models that have found applications not only in classical functional programming, but also in emerging programming paradigms that incorporate linear types, such as quantum programming and circuit description programming languages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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