Logical Step-Indexed Logical Relations

Appel and McAllester's "step-indexed" logical relations have proven to be a simple and effective technique for reasoning about programs in languages with semantically interesting types, such as general recursive types and general reference types. However, proofs using step-indexed models typically involve tedious, error-prone, and proof-obscuring step-index arithmetic, so it is important to develop clean, high-level, equational proof principles that avoid mention of step indices. In this paper, we show how to reason about binary step-indexed logical relations in an abstract and elegant way. Specifically, we define a logic LSLR, which is inspired by Plotkin and Abadi's logic for parametricity, but also supports recursively defined relations by means of the modal "later" operator from Appel, Melli\`es, Richards, and Vouillon's "very modal model" paper. We encode in LSLR a logical relation for reasoning relationally about programs in call-by-value System F extended with general recursive types. Using this logical relation, we derive a set of useful rules with which we can prove contextual equivalence and approximation results without counting steps

Step-Indexed Logical Relations for Probability (long version)

It is well-known that constructing models of higher-order probabilistic programming languages is challenging. We show how to construct step-indexed logical relations for a probabilistic extension of a higher-order programming language with impredicative polymorphism and recursive types. We show that the resulting logical relation is sound and complete with respect to the contextual preorder and, moreover, that it is convenient for reasoning about concrete program equivalences. Finally, we extend the language with dynamically allocated first-order references and show how to extend the logical relation to this language. We show that the resulting relation remains useful for reasoning about examples involving both state and probabilistic choice.Comment: Extended version with appendix of a FoSSaCS'15 pape

Step-Indexed Relational Reasoning for Countable Nondeterminism

Programming languages with countable nondeterministic choice are computationally interesting since countable nondeterminism arises when modeling fairness for concurrent systems. Because countable choice introduces non-continuous behaviour, it is well-known that developing semantic models for programming languages with countable nondeterminism is challenging. We present a step-indexed logical relations model of a higher-order functional programming language with countable nondeterminism and demonstrate how it can be used to reason about contextually defined may- and must-equivalence. In earlier step-indexed models, the indices have been drawn from {\omega}. Here the step-indexed relations for must-equivalence are indexed over an ordinal greater than {\omega}

Step-Indexed Normalization for a Language with General Recursion

The Trellys project has produced several designs for practical dependently typed languages. These languages are broken into two fragments-a_logical_fragment where every term normalizes and which is consistent when interpreted as a logic, and a_programmatic_fragment with general recursion and other convenient but unsound features. In this paper, we present a small example language in this style. Our design allows the programmer to explicitly mention and pass information between the two fragments. We show that this feature substantially complicates the metatheory and present a new technique, combining the traditional Girard-Tait method with step-indexed logical relations, which we use to show normalization for the logical fragment.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2012, arXiv:1202.240

Logical relations for coherence of effect subtyping

A coercion semantics of a programming language with subtyping is typically defined on typing derivations rather than on typing judgments. To avoid semantic ambiguity, such a semantics is expected to be coherent, i.e., independent of the typing derivation for a given typing judgment. In this article we present heterogeneous, biorthogonal, step-indexed logical relations for establishing the coherence of coercion semantics of programming languages with subtyping. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proof method, we develop a proof of coherence of a type-directed, selective CPS translation from a typed call-by-value lambda calculus with delimited continuations and control-effect subtyping. The article is accompanied by a Coq formalization that relies on a novel shallow embedding of a logic for reasoning about step-indexing

Logical Relations for Coherence of Effect Subtyping

A coercion semantics of a programming language with subtyping is typically defined on typing derivations rather than on typing judgments. To avoid semantic ambiguity, such a semantics is expected to be coherent, i.e., independent of the typing derivation for a given typing judgment. In this article we present heterogeneous, biorthogonal, step-indexed logical relations for establishing the coherence of coercion semantics of programming languages with subtyping. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proof method, we develop a proof of coherence of a type-directed, selective CPS translation from a typed call-by-value lambda calculus with delimited continuations and control-effect subtyping. The article is accompanied by a Coq formalization that relies on a novel shallow embedding of a logic for reasoning about step-indexing

A Case Study on Logical Relations using Contextual Types

Proofs by logical relations play a key role to establish rich properties such as normalization or contextual equivalence. They are also challenging to mechanize. In this paper, we describe the completeness proof of algorithmic equality for simply typed lambda-terms by Crary where we reason about logically equivalent terms in the proof environment Beluga. There are three key aspects we rely upon: 1) we encode lambda-terms together with their operational semantics and algorithmic equality using higher-order abstract syntax 2) we directly encode the corresponding logical equivalence of well-typed lambda-terms using recursive types and higher-order functions 3) we exploit Beluga's support for contexts and the equational theory of simultaneous substitutions. This leads to a direct and compact mechanization, demonstrating Beluga's strength at formalizing logical relations proofs.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0759

Modular, Fully-abstract Compilation by Approximate Back-translation

A compiler is fully-abstract if the compilation from source language programs to target language programs reflects and preserves behavioural equivalence. Such compilers have important security benefits, as they limit the power of an attacker interacting with the program in the target language to that of an attacker interacting with the program in the source language. Proving compiler full-abstraction is, however, rather complicated. A common proof technique is based on the back-translation of target-level program contexts to behaviourally-equivalent source-level contexts. However, constructing such a back- translation is problematic when the source language is not strong enough to embed an encoding of the target language. For instance, when compiling from STLC to ULC, the lack of recursive types in the former prevents such a back-translation. We propose a general and elegant solution for this problem. The key insight is that it suffices to construct an approximate back-translation. The approximation is only accurate up to a certain number of steps and conservative beyond that, in the sense that the context generated by the back-translation may diverge when the original would not, but not vice versa. Based on this insight, we describe a general technique for proving compiler full-abstraction and demonstrate it on a compiler from STLC to ULC. The proof uses asymmetric cross-language logical relations and makes innovative use of step-indexing to express the relation between a context and its approximate back-translation. The proof extends easily to common compiler patterns such as modular compilation and it, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first compiler full abstraction proof to have been fully mechanised in Coq. We believe this proof technique can scale to challenging settings and enable simpler, more scalable proofs of compiler full-abstraction