An Invariant Cost Model for the Lambda Calculus

We define a new cost model for the call-by-value lambda-calculus satisfying the invariance thesis. That is, under the proposed cost model, Turing machines and the call-by-value lambda-calculus can simulate each other within a polynomial time overhead. The model only relies on combinatorial properties of usual beta-reduction, without any reference to a specific machine or evaluator. In particular, the cost of a single beta reduction is proportional to the difference between the size of the redex and the size of the reduct. In this way, the total cost of normalizing a lambda term will take into account the size of all intermediate results (as well as the number of steps to normal form).Comment: 19 page

(Leftmost-Outermost) Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed

Slot and van Emde Boas' weak invariance thesis states that reasonable machines can simulate each other within a polynomially overhead in time. Is lambda-calculus a reasonable machine? Is there a way to measure the computational complexity of a lambda-term? This paper presents the first complete positive answer to this long-standing problem. Moreover, our answer is completely machine-independent and based over a standard notion in the theory of lambda-calculus: the length of a leftmost-outermost derivation to normal form is an invariant cost model. Such a theorem cannot be proved by directly relating lambda-calculus with Turing machines or random access machines, because of the size explosion problem: there are terms that in a linear number of steps produce an exponentially long output. The first step towards the solution is to shift to a notion of evaluation for which the length and the size of the output are linearly related. This is done by adopting the linear substitution calculus (LSC), a calculus of explicit substitutions modeled after linear logic proof nets and admitting a decomposition of leftmost-outermost derivations with the desired property. Thus, the LSC is invariant with respect to, say, random access machines. The second step is to show that LSC is invariant with respect to the lambda-calculus. The size explosion problem seems to imply that this is not possible: having the same notions of normal form, evaluation in the LSC is exponentially longer than in the lambda-calculus. We solve such an impasse by introducing a new form of shared normal form and shared reduction, deemed useful. Useful evaluation avoids those steps that only unshare the output without contributing to beta-redexes, i.e. the steps that cause the blow-up in size. The main technical contribution of the paper is indeed the definition of useful reductions and the thorough analysis of their properties.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1405.331

A feasible algorithm for typing in Elementary Affine Logic

We give a new type inference algorithm for typing lambda-terms in Elementary Affine Logic (EAL), which is motivated by applications to complexity and optimal reduction. Following previous references on this topic, the variant of EAL type system we consider (denoted EAL*) is a variant without sharing and without polymorphism. Our algorithm improves over the ones already known in that it offers a better complexity bound: if a simple type derivation for the term t is given our algorithm performs EAL* type inference in polynomial time.Comment: 20 page

Beta Reduction is Invariant, Indeed (Long Version)

Slot and van Emde Boas' weak invariance thesis states that reasonable machines can simulate each other within a polynomially overhead in time. Is $\lambda$-calculus a reasonable machine? Is there a way to measure the computational complexity of a $\lambda$-term? This paper presents the first complete positive answer to this long-standing problem. Moreover, our answer is completely machine-independent and based over a standard notion in the theory of $\lambda$-calculus: the length of a leftmost-outermost derivation to normal form is an invariant cost model. Such a theorem cannot be proved by directly relating $\lambda$-calculus with Turing machines or random access machines, because of the size explosion problem: there are terms that in a linear number of steps produce an exponentially long output. The first step towards the solution is to shift to a notion of evaluation for which the length and the size of the output are linearly related. This is done by adopting the linear substitution calculus (LSC), a calculus of explicit substitutions modelled after linear logic and proof-nets and admitting a decomposition of leftmost-outermost derivations with the desired property. Thus, the LSC is invariant with respect to, say, random access machines. The second step is to show that LSC is invariant with respect to the $\lambda$-calculus. The size explosion problem seems to imply that this is not possible: having the same notions of normal form, evaluation in the LSC is exponentially longer than in the $\lambda$-calculus. We solve such an impasse by introducing a new form of shared normal form and shared reduction, deemed useful. Useful evaluation avoids those steps that only unshare the output without contributing to $\beta$-redexes, i.e., the steps that cause the blow-up in size.Comment: 29 page

Equivalence of call-by-name and call-by-need for lambda-calculi with letrec

We develop a proof method to show that in a (deterministic) lambda calculus with letrec and equipped with contextual equivalence the call-by-name and the call-by-need evaluation are equivalent, and also that the unrestricted copy-operation is correct. Given a let-binding x = t, the copy-operation replaces an occurrence of the variable x by the expression t, regardless of the form of t. This gives an answer to unresolved problems in several papers, it adds a strong method to the tool set for reasoning about contextual equivalence in higher-order calculi with letrec, and it enables a class of transformations that can be used as optimizations. The method can be used in different kind of lambda calculi with cyclic sharing. Probably it can also be used in non-deterministic lambda calculi if the variable x is "deterministic", i.e., has no interference with non-deterministic executions. The main technical idea is to use a restricted variant of the infinitary lambda-calculus, whose objects are the expressions that are unrolled w.r.t. let, to define the infinite developments as a reduction calculus on the infinite trees and showing a standardization theorem

Light Logics and the Call-by-Value Lambda Calculus

The so-called light logics have been introduced as logical systems enjoying quite remarkable normalization properties. Designing a type assignment system for pure lambda calculus from these logics, however, is problematic. In this paper we show that shifting from usual call-by-name to call-by-value lambda calculus allows regaining strong connections with the underlying logic. This will be done in the context of Elementary Affine Logic (EAL), designing a type system in natural deduction style assigning EAL formulae to lambda terms.Comment: 28 page