MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406222352 · doi:10.1145/3704851

A Dependent Type Theory for Meta-programming with Intensional Analysis

2025· article· en· W4406222352 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Z. S. Hu, Brigitte Pientka

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProgramming languageComputer scienceType (biology)Type theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce DeLaM , a dependent layered modal type theory which enables meta-programming in Martin-Löf type theory (MLTT) with recursion principles on open code. DeLaM includes three layers: the layer of static syntax objects of MLTT without any computation, the layer of pure MLTT with the computational behaviors, and the meta-programming layer, which extends MLTT with support for quoting an open MLTT code object, composing, and analyzing open code using recursion. We can also execute a code object at the meta-programming layer. The expressive power strictly increases as we move up in a given layer. In particular, while code objects only describe static syntax, we allow computation at the MLTT and meta-programming layer. As a result, DeLaM provides a dependently typed foundation for meta-programming that supports both type-safe code generation and code analysis. We prove the weak normalization of DeLaM and the decidability of convertibility using Kripke logical relations.

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)0.009
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207