Normalisation by evaluation
In programming language semantics, normalisation by evaluation (NBE) is a method of obtaining the normal form of terms in the λ-calculus by appealing to their denotational semantics. A term is first interpreted into a denotational model of the λ-term structure, and then a canonical (β-normal and η-long) representative is extracted by reifying the denotation. Such an essentially semantic, reduction-free, approach differs from the more traditional syntactic, reduction-based, description of normalisation as reductions in a term rewrite system where β-reductions are allowed deep inside λ-terms.
NBE was first described for the simply typed lambda calculus.[1] It has since been extended both to weaker type systems such as the untyped lambda calculus[2] using a domain theoretic approach, and to richer type systems such as several variants of Martin-Löf type theory.[3][4][5][6]
Outline
[edit]Consider the simply typed lambda calculus, where types τ can be basic types (α), function types (→), or products (×), given by the following Backus–Naur form grammar (→ associating to the right, as usual):
- (Types) τ ::= α | τ1 → τ2 | τ1 × τ2
These can be implemented as a datatype in the meta-language; for example, for Standard ML, we might use:
datatype ty = Basic of string
| Arrow of ty * ty
| Prod of ty * ty
Terms are defined at two levels.[7] The lower syntactic level (sometimes called the dynamic level) is the representation that one intends to normalise.
- (Syntax Terms) s,t,… ::= var x | lam (x, t) | app (s, t) | pair (s, t) | fst t | snd t
Here lam/app (resp. pair/fst,snd) are the intro/elim forms for → (resp. ×), and x are variables. These terms are intended to be implemented as a first-order datatype in the meta-language:
datatype tm = var of string
| lam of string * tm | app of tm * tm
| pair of tm * tm | fst of tm | snd of tm
The denotational semantics of (closed) terms in the meta-language interprets the constructs of the syntax in terms of features of the meta-language; thus, lam is interpreted as abstraction, app as application, etc. The semantic objects constructed are as follows:
- (Semantic Terms) S,T,… ::= LAM (λx. S x) | PAIR (S, T) | SYN t
Note that there are no variables or elimination forms in the semantics; they are represented simply as syntax. These semantic objects are represented by the following datatype:
datatype sem = LAM of (sem -> sem)
| PAIR of sem * sem
| SYN of tm
There are a pair of type-indexed functions that move back and forth between the syntactic and semantic layer. The first function, usually written ↑τ, reflects the term syntax into the semantics, while the second reifies the semantics as a syntactic term (written as ↓τ). Their definitions are mutually recursive as follows:
These definitions are easily implemented in the meta-language:
(* fresh_var : unit -> string *)
val variable_ctr = ref ~1
fun fresh_var () =
(variable_ctr := 1 + !variable_ctr;
"v" ^ Int.toString (!variable_ctr))
(* reflect : ty -> tm -> sem *)
fun reflect (Arrow (a, b)) t =
LAM (fn S => reflect b (app (t, (reify a S))))
| reflect (Prod (a, b)) t =
PAIR (reflect a (fst t), reflect b (snd t))
| reflect (Basic _) t =
SYN t
(* reify : ty -> sem -> tm *)
and reify (Arrow (a, b)) (LAM S) =
let val x = fresh_var () in
lam (x, reify b (S (reflect a (var x))))
end
| reify (Prod (a, b)) (PAIR (S, T)) =
pair (reify a S, reify b T)
| reify (Basic _) (SYN t) = t
By induction on the structure of types, it follows that if the semantic object S denotes a well-typed term s of type τ, then reifying the object (i.e., ↓τ S) produces the β-normal η-long form of s. All that remains is, therefore, to construct the initial semantic interpretation S from a syntactic term s. This operation, written ∥s∥Γ, where Γ is a context of bindings, proceeds by induction solely on the term structure:
In the implementation:
datatype ctx = empty
| add of ctx * (string * sem)
(* lookup : ctx -> string -> sem *)
fun lookup (add (remdr, (y, value))) x =
if x = y then value else lookup remdr x
(* meaning : ctx -> tm -> sem *)
fun meaning G t =
case t of
var x => lookup G x
| lam (x, s) => LAM (fn S => meaning (add (G, (x, S))) s)
| app (s, t) => (case meaning G s of
LAM S => S (meaning G t))
| pair (s, t) => PAIR (meaning G s, meaning G t)
| fst s => (case meaning G s of
PAIR (S, T) => S)
| snd t => (case meaning G t of
PAIR (S, T) => T)
Note that there are many non-exhaustive cases; however, if applied to a closed well-typed term, none of these missing cases are ever encountered. The NBE operation on closed terms is then:
(* nbe : ty -> tm -> tm *)
fun nbe a t = reify a (meaning empty t)
As an example of its use, consider the syntactic term SKK
defined below:
val K = lam ("x", lam ("y", var "x"))
val S = lam ("x", lam ("y", lam ("z", app (app (var "x", var "z"), app (var "y", var "z")))))
val SKK = app (app (S, K), K)
This is the well-known encoding of the identity function in combinatory logic. Normalising it at an identity type produces:
- nbe (Arrow (Basic "a", Basic "a")) SKK;
val it = lam ("v0",var "v0") : tm
The result is actually in η-long form, as can be easily seen by normalizing it at a different identity type:
- nbe (Arrow (Arrow (Basic "a", Basic "b"), Arrow (Basic "a", Basic "b"))) SKK;
val it = lam ("v1",lam ("v2",app (var "v1",var "v2"))) : tm
Variants
[edit]Using de Bruijn levels instead of names in the residual syntax makes reify
a pure function in that there is no need for fresh_var
.[8]
The datatype of residual terms can also be the datatype of residual terms in normal form.
The type of reify
(and therefore of nbe
) then makes it clear that the result is normalized.
And if the datatype of normal forms is typed, the type of reify
(and therefore of nbe
) then makes it clear that normalization is type preserving.[9]
Normalization by evaluation also scales to the simply typed lambda calculus with sums (+
),[7] using the delimited control operators shift
and reset
.[10]
See also
[edit]- MINLOG, a proof assistant that uses NBE as its rewrite engine.
References
[edit]- ^ Berger, Ulrich; Schwichtenberg, Helmut (1991). "An inverse of the evaluation functional for typed λ-calculus". LICS.
- ^ Filinski, Andrzej; Rohde, Henning Korsholm (2005). "A denotational account of untyped normalization by evaluation". Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (FOSSACS). Vol. 10. doi:10.7146/brics.v12i4.21870.
- ^ Coquand, Thierry; Dybjer, Peter (1997). "Intuitionistic model constructions and normalization proofs". Mathematical Structure in Computer Science. 7 (1): 75–94. doi:10.1017/S0960129596002150 (inactive 29 November 2024).
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) - ^ Abel, Andreas; Aehlig, Klaus; Dybjer, Peter (2007). "Normalization by Evaluation for Martin-Löf Type Theory with One Universe" (PDF). MFPS.
- ^ Abel, Andreas; Coquand, Thierry; Dybjer, Peter (2007). "Normalization by Evaluation for Martin-Löf Type Theory with Typed Equality Judgements" (PDF). LICS.
- ^ Gratzer, Daniel; Sterling, Jon; Birkedal, Lars (2019). "Implementing a Modal Dependent Type Theory" (PDF). ICFP.
- ^ a b Danvy, Olivier (1996). "Type-directed partial evaluation" (gzipped PostScript). POPL: 242–257.
- ^ Filinski, Andrzej. "A Semantic Account of Type-Directed Partial Evaluation". Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming. doi:10.7146/brics.v6i17.20074.
- ^ Danvy, Olivier; Rhiger, Morten; Rose, Kristoffer (2001). "Normalization by Evaluation with Typed Abstract Syntax". Journal of Functional Programming. 11 (6): 673–680. doi:10.1017/S0956796801004166.
- ^ Danvy, Olivier; Filinski, Andrzej (1990). "Abstracting Control". LISP and Functional Programming. pp. 151–160. doi:10.1145/91556.91622. ISBN 0-89791-368-X. S2CID 6426191.