Abstracting Gradual Typing Moving Forward: Precise and Space-Efficient (Technical Report)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracting Gradual Typing (AGT) is a systematic approach to designing gradually-typed languages. Languages developed using AGT automatically satisfy the formal semantic criteria for gradual languages identified by Siek et al. [2015]. Nonetheless, vanilla AGT semantics can still have important shortcomings. First, a gradual language's runtime checks should preserve the space-efficiency guarantees inherent to the underlying static and dynamic languages. To the contrary, the default operational semantics of AGT break proper tail calls. Second, a gradual language's runtime checks should enforce basic modular type-based invariants expected from the static type discipline. To the contrary, the default operational semantics of AGT may fail to enforce some invariants in surprising ways. We demonstrate this in the $\text{GTFL}_\lesssim$ language of Garcia et al. [2016]. This paper addresses both problems at once by refining the theory underlying AGT's dynamic checks. Garcia et al. [2016] observe that AGT involves two abstractions of static types: one for the static semantics and one for the dynamic semantics. We recast the latter as an abstract interpretation of subtyping itself, while gradual types still abstract static types. Then we show how forward-completeness [Giacobazzi and Quintarelli 2001] is key to supporting both space-efficient execution and reliable runtime type enforcement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".