MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411260250 · doi:10.1145/3729261

Certified Compilers à la Carte

2025· article· en· W4411260250 on OpenAlexaff
Oghenevwogaga Ebresafe, Ian Zhao, Ende Jin, Charles Jian, Yizhou Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certified compilers are complex software systems. Like other large systems, they demand modular, extensible designs. While there has been progress in extensible metatheory mechanization, scaling extensibility and reuse to meet the demands of full compiler verification remains a major challenge. We respond to this challenge by introducing novel expressive power to a proof language. Our language design equips the Rocq prover with an extensibility mechanism inspired by the object-oriented ideas of late binding, mixin composition, and family polymorphism. We implement our design as a plugin for Rocq, called Rocqet. We identify strategies for using Rocqet’s new expressive power to modularize the monolithic design of large certified developments as complex as the CompCert compiler. The payoff is a high degree of modularity and reuse in the formalization of intermediate languages, ISAs, compiler transformations, and compiler extensions, with the ability to compose these reusable components—certified compilers à la carte. We report significantly improved proof-compilation performance compared to earlier work on extensible metatheory mechanization. We also report good performance of the extracted compiler.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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