-
How Functorial Are (Deep) GADTs?
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Pierre Cagne
Abstract:
It is well-known that GADTs do not admit standard map functions of the kind supported by ADTs and nested types. In addition, standard map functions are insufficient to distribute their data-changing argument functions over all of the structure present in elements of deep GADTs, even just deep ADTs or nested types. This paper develops an algorithm for detecting exactly which functions are mappable…
▽ More
It is well-known that GADTs do not admit standard map functions of the kind supported by ADTs and nested types. In addition, standard map functions are insufficient to distribute their data-changing argument functions over all of the structure present in elements of deep GADTs, even just deep ADTs or nested types. This paper develops an algorithm for detecting exactly which functions are mappable over data whose types are (deep) GADTs. The algorithm takes as input a term t whose type is an instance of a deep GADT D and a function f to be mapped over t. It detects a minimal possible shape of t as an element of D, and returns a minimal set of constraints f must satisfy to be mappable over t. The crux of the algorithm is its ability to separate t's essential structure as an element of D -- i.e., the part of t that is essential for it to have the shape of an element of D -- from its incidental structure as an element of D -- i.e., the part of t that is simply data in the positions of this shape. The algorithm ensures that the constraints on f come only from t's essential structure. This work is part of an ongoing effort to define initial algebra semantics for GADTs that properly generalizes the usual semantics for ADTs and nested types as least fixpoints of higher-order endofunctors.
△ Less
Submitted 28 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
-
(Deep) Induction Rules for GADTs
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Enrico Ghiorzi
Abstract:
Deep data types are those that are constructed from other data types, including, possibly, themselves. In this case, they are said to be truly nested. Deep induction is an extension of structural induction that traverses all of the structure in a deep data type, propagating predicates on its primitive data throughout the entire structure. Deep induction can be used to prove properties of nested ty…
▽ More
Deep data types are those that are constructed from other data types, including, possibly, themselves. In this case, they are said to be truly nested. Deep induction is an extension of structural induction that traverses all of the structure in a deep data type, propagating predicates on its primitive data throughout the entire structure. Deep induction can be used to prove properties of nested types, including truly nested types, that cannot be proved via structural induction. In this paper we show how to extend deep induction to GADTs that are not truly nested GADTs. This opens the way to incorporating automatic generation of (deep) induction rules for them into proof assistants. We also show that the techniques developed in this paper do not suffice for extending deep induction to truly nested GADTs, so more sophisticated techniques are needed to derive deep induction rules for them.
△ Less
Submitted 7 December, 2021; v1 submitted 17 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
GADTs, Functoriality, Parametricity: Pick Two
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Enrico Ghiorzi,
Daniel Jeffries
Abstract:
GADTs can be represented either as their Church encodings a la Atkey, or as fixpoints a la Johann and Polonsky. While a GADT represented as its Church encoding need not support a map function satisfying the functor laws, the fixpoint representation of a GADT must support such a map function even to be well-defined. The two representations of a GADT thus need not be the same in general. This observ…
▽ More
GADTs can be represented either as their Church encodings a la Atkey, or as fixpoints a la Johann and Polonsky. While a GADT represented as its Church encoding need not support a map function satisfying the functor laws, the fixpoint representation of a GADT must support such a map function even to be well-defined. The two representations of a GADT thus need not be the same in general. This observation forces a choice of representation of data types in languages supporting GADTs. In this paper we show that choosing whether to represent data types as their Church encodings or as fixpoints determines whether or not a language supporting GADTs can have parametric models. This choice thus has important consequences for how we can program with, and reason about, these advanced data types.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2022; v1 submitted 7 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
Parametricity for Nested Types and GADTs
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Enrico Ghiorzi
Abstract:
This paper considers parametricity and its consequent free theorems for nested data types. Rather than representing nested types via their Church encodings in a higher-kinded or dependently typed extension of System F, we adopt a functional programming perspective and design a Hindley-Milner-style calculus with primitives for constructing nested types directly as fixpoints. Our calculus can expres…
▽ More
This paper considers parametricity and its consequent free theorems for nested data types. Rather than representing nested types via their Church encodings in a higher-kinded or dependently typed extension of System F, we adopt a functional programming perspective and design a Hindley-Milner-style calculus with primitives for constructing nested types directly as fixpoints. Our calculus can express all nested types appearing in the literature, including truly nested types. At the level of terms, it supports primitive pattern matching, map functions, and fold combinators for nested types. Our main contribution is the construction of a parametric model for our calculus. This is both delicate and challenging. In particular, to ensure the existence of semantic fixpoints interpreting nested types, and thus to establish a suitable Identity Extension Lemma for our calculus, our type system must explicitly track functoriality of types, and cocontinuity conditions on the functors interpreting them must be appropriately threaded throughout the model construction. We also prove that our model satisfies an appropriate Abstraction Theorem, as well as that it verifies all standard consequences of parametricity in the presence of primitive nested types. We give several concrete examples illustrating how our model can be used to derive useful free theorems, including a short cut fusion transformation, for programs over nested types. Finally, we consider generalizing our results to GADTs, and argue that no extension of our parametric model for nested types can give a functorial interpretation of GADTs in terms of left Kan extensions and still be parametric.
△ Less
Submitted 22 December, 2021; v1 submitted 12 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
On local presentability of T/A
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Andrew Polonsky
Abstract:
We prove that if $\mathcal{A}$ is a locally $λ$-presentable category and $T : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{A}$ is a $λ$-accessible functor then $T/\mathcal{A}$ is locally $λ$-presentable.
We prove that if $\mathcal{A}$ is a locally $λ$-presentable category and $T : \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{A}$ is a $λ$-accessible functor then $T/\mathcal{A}$ is locally $λ$-presentable.
△ Less
Submitted 6 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
A General Framework for Relational Parametricity
Authors:
Kristina Sojakova,
Patricia Johann
Abstract:
Reynolds' original theory of relational parametricity was intended to capture the idea that polymorphically typed System F programs preserve all relations between inputs. But as Reynolds himself later showed, his theory can only be formalized in a meta-theory with an impredicative universe, such as the Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Abstracting from Reynolds' ideas, Dunphy and Reddy develope…
▽ More
Reynolds' original theory of relational parametricity was intended to capture the idea that polymorphically typed System F programs preserve all relations between inputs. But as Reynolds himself later showed, his theory can only be formalized in a meta-theory with an impredicative universe, such as the Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Abstracting from Reynolds' ideas, Dunphy and Reddy developed their well-known framework for parametricity that uses parametric limits in reflexive graph categories and aims to subsume a variety of parametric models. As we observe, however, their theory is not sufficiently general to subsume the very model that inspired parametricity, namely Reynolds' original model, expressed inside type theory. To correct this, we develop an abstract framework for relational parametricity that generalizes the notion of a reflexive graph categories and delivers Reynolds' model as a direct instance in a natural way. This framework is uniform with respect to a choice of meta-theory, which allows us to obtain the well-known PER model of Longo and Moggi as a direct instance in a natural way as well. In addition, we offer two novel relationally parametric models of System F: i) a categorical version of Reynolds' model, where types are functorial on isomorphisms and all polymorphic functions respect the functorial action, and ii) a proof-relevant categorical version of Reynolds' model (after Orsanigo), where, additionally, witnesses of relatedness are themselves suitably related. We show that, unlike previously existing frameworks for parametricity, ours recognizes both of these new models in a natural way. Our framework is thus descriptive, in that it accounts for well-known models, as well as prescriptive, in that it identifies abstract properties that good models of relational parametricity should satisfy and suggests new constructions of such models.
△ Less
Submitted 11 May, 2018; v1 submitted 30 April, 2018;
originally announced May 2018.
-
Cubical Categories for Higher-Dimensional Parametricity
Authors:
Patricia Johann,
Kristina Sojakova
Abstract:
Reynolds' theory of relational parametricity formalizes parametric polymorphism for System F, thus capturing the idea that polymorphically typed System F programs always map related inputs to related results. This paper shows that Reynolds' theory can be seen as the instantiation at dimension 1 of a theory of relational parametricity for System F that holds at all higher dimensions, including infi…
▽ More
Reynolds' theory of relational parametricity formalizes parametric polymorphism for System F, thus capturing the idea that polymorphically typed System F programs always map related inputs to related results. This paper shows that Reynolds' theory can be seen as the instantiation at dimension 1 of a theory of relational parametricity for System F that holds at all higher dimensions, including infinite dimension. This theory is formulated in terms of the new notion of a p-dimensional cubical category, which we use to define a p-dimensional parametric model of System F for any p, where p is a natural number or infinity. We show that every p-dimensional parametric model of System F yields a split $λ$ 2-fibration in which types are interpreted as face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors and terms are interpreted as face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformations. We demonstrate that our theory is "good" by showing that the PER model of Bainbridge et al. is derivable as another 1-dimensional instance, and that all instances at all dimensions derive higher-dimensional analogues of expected results for parametric models, such as a Graph Lemma and the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras. Finally, our technical development resolves a number of significant technical issues arising in Ghani et al.'s recent bifibrational treatment of relational parametricity, which allows us to clarify their approach and strengthen their main result. Once clarified, their bifibrational framework, too, can be seen as a 1-dimensional instance of our theory.
△ Less
Submitted 22 January, 2017;
originally announced January 2017.
-
A Productivity Checker for Logic Programming
Authors:
E. Komendantskaya,
P. Johann,
M. Schmidt
Abstract:
Automated analysis of recursive derivations in logic programming is known to be a hard problem. Both termination and non-termination are undecidable problems in Turing-complete languages. However, some declarative languages offer a practical work-around for this problem, by making a clear distinction between whether a program is meant to be understood inductively or coinductively. For programs mea…
▽ More
Automated analysis of recursive derivations in logic programming is known to be a hard problem. Both termination and non-termination are undecidable problems in Turing-complete languages. However, some declarative languages offer a practical work-around for this problem, by making a clear distinction between whether a program is meant to be understood inductively or coinductively. For programs meant to be understood inductively, termination must be guaranteed, whereas for programs meant to be understood coinductively, productive non-termination (or "productivity") must be ensured. In practice, such classification helps to better understand and implement some non-terminating computations.
Logic programming was one of the first declarative languages to make this distinction: in the 1980's, Lloyd and van Emden's "computations at infinity" captured the big-step operational semantics of derivations that produce infinite terms as answers. In modern terms, computations at infinity describe "global productivity" of computations in logic programming. Most programming languages featuring coinduction also provide an observational, or small-step, notion of productivity as a computational counterpart to global productivity. This kind of productivity is ensured by checking that finite initial fragments of infinite computations can always be observed to produce finite portions of their infinite answer terms.
In this paper we introduce a notion of observational productivity for logic programming as an algorithmic approximation of global productivity, give an effective procedure for semi-deciding observational productivity, and offer an implemented automated observational productivity checker for logic programs.
△ Less
Submitted 19 August, 2016; v1 submitted 15 August, 2016;
originally announced August 2016.
-
Structural Resolution: a Framework for Coinductive Proof Search and Proof Construction in Horn Clause Logic
Authors:
Ekaterina Komendantskaya,
Patricia Johann,
Martin Schmidt
Abstract:
Logic programming (LP) is a programming language based on first-order Horn clause logic that uses SLD-resolution as a semi-decision procedure. Finite SLD-computations are inductively sound and complete with respect to least Herbrand models of logic programs. Dually, the corecursive approach to SLD-resolution views infinite SLD-computations as successively approximating infinite terms contained in…
▽ More
Logic programming (LP) is a programming language based on first-order Horn clause logic that uses SLD-resolution as a semi-decision procedure. Finite SLD-computations are inductively sound and complete with respect to least Herbrand models of logic programs. Dually, the corecursive approach to SLD-resolution views infinite SLD-computations as successively approximating infinite terms contained in programs' greatest complete Herbrand models. State-of-the-art algorithms implementing corecursion in LP are based on loop detection. However, such algorithms support inference of logical entailment only for rational terms, and they do not account for the important property of productivity in infinite SLD-computations. Loop detection thus lags behind coinductive methods in interactive theorem proving (ITP) and term-rewriting systems (TRS).
Structural resolution is a newly proposed alternative to SLD-resolution that makes it possible to define and semi-decide a notion of productivity appropriate to LP. In this paper, we prove soundness of structural resolution relative to Herbrand model semantics for productive inductive, coinductive, and mixed inductive-coinductive logic programs.
We introduce two algorithms that support coinductive proof search for infinite productive terms. One algorithm combines the method of loop detection with productive structural resolution, thus guaranteeing productivity of coinductive proofs for infinite rational terms. The other allows to make lazy sound observations of fragments of infinite irrational productive terms. This puts coinductive methods in LP on par with productivity-based observational approaches to coinduction in ITP and TRS.
△ Less
Submitted 4 May, 2017; v1 submitted 24 November, 2015;
originally announced November 2015.
-
Structural Resolution for Logic Programming
Authors:
P. Johann,
E. Komendantskaya,
V. Komendantskiy
Abstract:
We introduce a Three Tier Tree Calculus (3TC) that defines in a systematic way three tiers of tree structures underlying proof search in logic programming. We use 3TC to define a new -- structural -- version of resolution for logic programming.
We introduce a Three Tier Tree Calculus (3TC) that defines in a systematic way three tiers of tree structures underlying proof search in logic programming. We use 3TC to define a new -- structural -- version of resolution for logic programming.
△ Less
Submitted 21 July, 2015;
originally announced July 2015.
-
Indexed Induction and Coinduction, Fibrationally
Authors:
Neil Ghani,
Patricia Johann,
Clement Fumex
Abstract:
This paper extends the fibrational approach to induction and coinduction pioneered by Hermida and Jacobs, and developed by the current authors, in two key directions. First, we present a dual to the sound induction rule for inductive types that we developed previously. That is, we present a sound coinduction rule for any data type arising as the carrier of the final coalgebra of a functor, thus r…
▽ More
This paper extends the fibrational approach to induction and coinduction pioneered by Hermida and Jacobs, and developed by the current authors, in two key directions. First, we present a dual to the sound induction rule for inductive types that we developed previously. That is, we present a sound coinduction rule for any data type arising as the carrier of the final coalgebra of a functor, thus relaxing Hermida and Jacobs' restriction to polynomial functors. To achieve this we introduce the notion of a quotient category with equality (QCE) that i) abstracts the standard notion of a fibration of relations constructed from a given fibration; and ii) plays a role in the theory of coinduction dual to that played by a comprehension category with unit (CCU) in the theory of induction. Secondly, we show that inductive and coinductive indexed types also admit sound induction and coinduction rules. Indexed data types often arise as carriers of initial algebras and final coalgebras of functors on slice categories, so we give sufficient conditions under which we can construct, from a CCU (QCE) U:E \rightarrow B, a fibration with base B/I that models indexing by I and is also a CCU (resp., QCE). We finish the paper by considering the more general case of sound induction and coinduction rules for indexed data types when the indexing is itself given by a fibration.
△ Less
Submitted 20 September, 2013; v1 submitted 11 July, 2013;
originally announced July 2013.
-
Generic Fibrational Induction
Authors:
Neil Ghani,
Patricia Johann,
Clement Fumex
Abstract:
This paper provides an induction rule that can be used to prove properties of data structures whose types are inductive, i.e., are carriers of initial algebras of functors. Our results are semantic in nature and are inspired by Hermida and Jacobs' elegant algebraic formulation of induction for polynomial data types. Our contribution is to derive, under slightly different assumptions, a sound indu…
▽ More
This paper provides an induction rule that can be used to prove properties of data structures whose types are inductive, i.e., are carriers of initial algebras of functors. Our results are semantic in nature and are inspired by Hermida and Jacobs' elegant algebraic formulation of induction for polynomial data types. Our contribution is to derive, under slightly different assumptions, a sound induction rule that is generic over all inductive types, polynomial or not. Our induction rule is generic over the kinds of properties to be proved as well: like Hermida and Jacobs, we work in a general fibrational setting and so can accommodate very general notions of properties on inductive types rather than just those of a particular syntactic form. We establish the soundness of our generic induction rule by reducing induction to iteration. We then show how our generic induction rule can be instantiated to give induction rules for the data types of rose trees, finite hereditary sets, and hyperfunctions. The first of these lies outside the scope of Hermida and Jacobs' work because it is not polynomial, and as far as we are aware, no induction rules have been known to exist for the second and third in a general fibrational framework. Our instantiation for hyperfunctions underscores the value of working in the general fibrational setting since this data type cannot be interpreted as a set.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2012; v1 submitted 2 June, 2012;
originally announced June 2012.
-
Refining Inductive Types
Authors:
Robert Atkey,
Patricia Johann,
Neil Ghani
Abstract:
Dependently typed programming languages allow sophisticated properties of data to be expressed within the type system. Of particular use in dependently typed programming are indexed types that refine data by computationally useful information. For example, the N-indexed type of vectors refines lists by their lengths. Other data types may be refined in similar ways, but programmers must produce pu…
▽ More
Dependently typed programming languages allow sophisticated properties of data to be expressed within the type system. Of particular use in dependently typed programming are indexed types that refine data by computationally useful information. For example, the N-indexed type of vectors refines lists by their lengths. Other data types may be refined in similar ways, but programmers must produce purpose-specific refinements on an ad hoc basis, developers must anticipate which refinements to include in libraries, and implementations must often store redundant information about data and their refinements. In this paper we show how to generically derive inductive characterisations of refinements of inductive types, and argue that these characterisations can alleviate some of the aforementioned difficulties associated with ad hoc refinements. Our characterisations also ensure that standard techniques for programming with and reasoning about inductive types are applicable to refinements, and that refinements can themselves be further refined.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2012; v1 submitted 11 May, 2012;
originally announced May 2012.
