MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387270836 · doi:10.1017/s0956796823000060

Normalization by evaluation for modal dependent type theory

2023· article· en· W4387270836 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Z. S. Hu, Junyoung Jang, Brigitte Pientka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Programming · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceNormalization (sociology)Type theoryModalHaskellTyped lambda calculusCurry–Howard correspondenceProgramming languageAlgorithmModular designCalculus (dental)Theoretical computer scienceAlgebra over a fieldType (biology)Functional programmingLambda calculusMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the Kripke-style modal type theory, Mint , which combines dependent types and the necessity modality. It extends the Kripke-style modal lambda-calculus by Pfenning and Davies to the full Martin-Löf type theory. As such it encompasses dependently typed variants of system K , T , K 4, and S 4. Further, Mint seamlessly supports a full universe hierarchy, usual inductive types, and large eliminations. In this paper, we give a modular sound and complete normalization-by-evaluation (NbE) proof for Mint based on an untyped domain model, which applies to all four aforementioned modal systems without modification. This NbE proof yields a normalization algorithm for Mint, which can be directly implemented. To further strengthen our results, our models and the NbE proof are fully mechanized in Agda and we extract a Haskell implementation of our NbE algorithm from it.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Functional ProgrammingSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207