Undecidability of <i> d <sub><:</sub> </i> and its decidable fragments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dependent Object Types (DOT) is a calculus with path dependent types, intersection types, and object self-references, which serves as the core calculus of Scala 3. Although the calculus has been proven sound, it remains open whether type checking in DOT is decidable. In this paper, we establish undecidability proofs of type checking and subtyping of D <: , a syntactic subset of DOT. It turns out that even for D <: , undecidability is surprisingly difficult to show, as evidenced by counterexamples for past attempts. To prove undecidability, we discover an equivalent definition of the D <: subtyping rules in normal form. Besides being easier to reason about, this definition makes the phenomenon of subtyping reflection explicit as a single inference rule. After removing this rule, we discover two decidable fragments of D <: subtyping and identify algorithms to decide them. We prove soundness and completeness of the algorithms with respect to the fragments, and we prove that the algorithms terminate. Our proofs are mechanized in a combination of Coq and Agda.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".