From Outermost Reduction Semantics to Abstract Machine

Reduction semantics is a popular format for small-step operational semantics of deterministic programming languages with computational effects.Each reduction semantics gives rise to a reduction-based normalization function where the reduction sequence is enumerated.Refocusing is a practical way to transform a reduction-based normalization function into a reduction-free one where the reduction sequence is not enumerated.This reduction-free normalization function takes the form of an abstract machine that navigates from one redex site to the next without systematically detouring via the root of the term to enumerate the reduction sequence, in contrast to the reduction-based normalization function.We have discovered that refocusing does not apply as readily for reduction semantics that use an outermost reduction strategy and have overlapping rules where a contractum can be a proper subpart of a redex.In this article, we consider such an outermost reduction semantics with backward-overlapping rules, and we investigate how to apply refocusing to still obtain a reduction-free normalization function in the form of an abstract machine

A Strong Distillery

Abstract machines for the strong evaluation of lambda-terms (that is, under abstractions) are a mostly neglected topic, despite their use in the implementation of proof assistants and higher-order logic programming languages. This paper introduces a machine for the simplest form of strong evaluation, leftmost-outermost (call-by-name) evaluation to normal form, proving it correct, complete, and bounding its overhead. Such a machine, deemed Strong Milner Abstract Machine, is a variant of the KAM computing normal forms and using just one global environment. Its properties are studied via a special form of decoding, called a distillation, into the Linear Substitution Calculus, neatly reformulating the machine as a standard micro-step strategy for explicit substitutions, namely linear leftmost-outermost reduction, i.e., the extension to normal form of linear head reduction. Additionally, the overhead of the machine is shown to be linear both in the number of steps and in the size of the initial term, validating its design. The study highlights two distinguished features of strong machines, namely backtracking phases and their interactions with abstractions and environments.Comment: Accepted at APLAS 201

(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

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

12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012) : WST 2012, February 19–23, 2012, Obergurgl, Austria / ed. by Georg Moser

This volume contains the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012), to be held February 19–23, 2012 in Obergurgl, Austria. The goal of the Workshop on Termination is to be a venue for presentation and discussion of all topics in and around termination. In this way, the workshop tries to bridge the gaps between different communities interested and active in research in and around termination. The 12th International Workshop on Termination in Obergurgl continues the successful workshops held in St. Andrews (1993), La Bresse (1995), Ede (1997), Dagstuhl (1999), Utrecht (2001), Valencia (2003), Aachen (2004), Seattle (2006), Paris (2007), Leipzig (2009), and Edinburgh (2010). The 12th International Workshop on Termination did welcome contributions on all aspects of termination and complexity analysis. Contributions from the imperative, constraint, functional, and logic programming communities, and papers investigating applications of complexity or termination (for example in program transformation or theorem proving) were particularly welcome. We did receive 18 submissions which all were accepted. Each paper was assigned two reviewers. In addition to these 18 contributed talks, WST 2012, hosts three invited talks by Alexander Krauss, Martin Hofmann, and Fausto Spoto

On Computational Small Steps and Big Steps: Refocusing for Outermost Reduction

We study the relationship between small-step semantics, big-step semantics and abstract machines, for programming languages that employ an outermost reduction strategy, i.e., languages where reductions near the root of the abstract syntax tree are performed before reductions near the leaves.In particular, we investigate how Biernacka and Danvy's syntactic correspondence and Reynolds's functional correspondence can be applied to inter-derive semantic specifications for such languages.The main contribution of this dissertation is three-fold:First, we identify that backward overlapping reduction rules in the small-step semantics cause the refocusing step of the syntactic correspondence to be inapplicable.Second, we propose two solutions to overcome this in-applicability: backtracking and rule generalization.Third, we show how these solutions affect the other transformations of the two correspondences.Other contributions include the application of the syntactic and functional correspondences to Boolean normalization.In particular, we show how to systematically derive a spectrum of normalization functions for negational and conjunctive normalization