Graded Differential Categories and Graded Differential Linear Logic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Linear Logic ($\mathsf{LL}$), the exponential modality $!$ brings forth a distinction between non-linear proofs and linear proofs, where linear means using an argument exactly once. Differential Linear Logic ($\mathsf{DiLL}$) is an extension of Linear Logic which includes additional rules for $!$ which encode differentiation and the ability of linearizing proofs. On the other hand, Graded Linear Logic ($\mathsf{GLL}$) is a variation of Linear Logic in such a way that $!$ is now indexed over a semiring $R$. This $R$-grading allows for non-linear proofs of degree $r \in R$, such that the linear proofs are of degree $1 \in R$. There has been recent interest in combining these two variations of $\mathsf{LL}$ together and developing Graded Differential Linear Logic ($\mathsf{GDiLL}$). In this paper we present a sequent calculus for $\mathsf{GDiLL}$, as well as introduce its categorical semantics, which we call graded differential categories, using both coderelictions and deriving transformations. We prove that symmetric powers always give graded differential categories, and provide other examples of graded differential categories. We also discuss graded versions of (monoidal) coalgebra modalities, additive bialgebra modalities, and the Seely isomorphisms, as well as their implementations in the sequent calculus of $\mathsf{GDiLL}$.
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 | 0.000 | 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".