Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selection monad on a set consists of selection functions. These select an element from the set, based on a loss (dually, reward) function giving the loss resulting from a choice of an element. Abadi and Plotkin used the monad to model a language with operations making choices of computations taking account of the loss that would arise from each choice. However, their choices were optimal, and they asked if they could instead be programmer provided. In this work, we present a novel design enabling programmers to do so. We present a version of algebraic effect handlers enriched by computational ideas inspired by the selection monad. Specifically, as well as the usual delimited continuations, our new kind of handlers additionally have access to choice continuations , that give the possible future losses. In this way programmers can write operations implementing optimisation algorithms that are aware of the losses arising from their possible choices. We give an operational semantics for a higher-order model language λC , and establish desirable properties including progress, type soundness, and termination for a subset with a mild hierarchical constraint on allowable operation types. We give this subset a selection monad denotational semantics, and prove soundness and adequacy results. We also present a Haskell implementation and give a variety of programming examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".