Fair reactive programming
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional Reactive Programming (FRP) models reactive systems with events and signals, which have previously been observed to correspond to the "eventually" and "always" modalities of linear temporal logic (LTL). In this paper, we define a constructive variant of LTL with least fixed point and greatest fixed point operators in the spirit of the modal mu-calculus, and give it a proofs-as-programs interpretation as a foundational calculus for reactive programs. Previous work emphasized the propositions-as-types part of the correspondence between LTL and FRP; here we emphasize the proofs-as-programs part by employing structural proof theory. We show that the type system is expressive enough to enforce liveness properties such as the fairness of schedulers and the eventual delivery of results. We illustrate programming in this calculus using (co)iteration operators. We prove type preservation of our operational semantics, which guarantees that our programs are causal. We give also a proof of strong normalization which provides justification that our programs are productive and that they satisfy liveness properties derived from their types.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it