MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413966266 · doi:10.70930/tac/c16x3xtf

Category-theoretic models of Linear Abadi & Plotkin Logic

2008· article· en· W4413966266 on OpenAlex
Lars Birkedal, Rasmus Ejlers Møgelberg, Rasmus Lerchedahl Petersen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear logicMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a sound and complete category-theoretic notion of models for Linear Abadi & Plotkin Logic [Birkedal et al., 2006], a logic suitable for reasoning about parametricity in combination with recursion.A subclass of these called parametric LAPL structures can be seen as an axiomatization of domain theoretic models of parametric polymorphism, and we show how to solve general (nested) recursive domain equations in these.Parametric LAPL structures constitute a general notion of model of parametricity in a setting with recursion.In future papers we will demonstrate this by showing how many different models of parametricity and recursion give rise to parametric LAPL structures, including Simpson and Rosolini's set theoretic models [Rosolini and Simpson, 2004], a syntactic model based on Lily [Pitts, 2000, Bierman et al., 2000] and a model based on admissible pers over a reflexive domain [Birkedal et al., 2007].

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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