Extended Call-by-Push-Value: Reasoning About Effectful Programs and Evaluation Order

Traditionally, reasoning about programs under varying evaluation regimes (call-by-value, call-by-name etc.) was done at the meta-level, treating them as term rewriting systems. Levy’s call-by-push-value (CBPV) calculus provides a more powerful approach for reasoning, by treating CBPV terms as a common intermediate language which captures both call-by-value and call-by-name, and by allowing equational reasoning about changes to evaluation order between or within programs. We extend CBPV to additionally deal with call-by-need, which is non-trivial because of shared reductions. This allows the equational reasoning to also support call-by-need. As an example, we then prove that call-by-need and call-by-name are equivalent if nontermination is the only side-effect in the source language. We then show how to incorporate an effect system. This enables us to exploit static knowledge of the potential effects of a given expression to augment equational reasoning; thus a program fragment might be invariant under change of evaluation regime only because of knowledge of its effects

Realizability Interpretation and Normalization of Typed Call-by-Need λ\lambda-calculus With Control

We define a variant of realizability where realizers are pairs of a term and a substitution. This variant allows us to prove the normalization of a simply-typed call-by-need \lambda$-$calculus with control due to Ariola et al. Indeed, in such call-by-need calculus, substitutions have to be delayed until knowing if an argument is really needed. In a second step, we extend the proof to a call-by-need \lambda$$-calculus equipped with a type system equivalent to classical second-order predicate logic, representing one step towards proving the normalization of the call-by-need classical second-order arithmetic introduced by the second author to provide a proof-as-program interpretation of the axiom of dependent choice

Models of a Non-Associative Composition

International audienceWe characterise the polarised evaluation order through a categorical structure where the hypothesis that composition is associative is relaxed. Duploid is the name of the structure, as a reference to Jean-Louis Loday's duplicial algebras. The main result is a reflection Adj→Dupl where Dupl is a category of duploids and duploid functors, and Adj is the category of adjunctions and pseudo maps of adjunctions. The result suggests that the various biases in denotational semantics: indirect, call-by-value, call-by-name... are a way of hiding the fact that composition is not always associative.Nous caractérisons l'ordre d'évaluation polarisé à travers une structure catégorielle dont l'hypothèse que la composition est associative est relâchée. Duploïde est le nom de la structure, par référence aux algèbres dupliciales de Loday. Le résultat principal est une réflection Adj→Dupl où Dupl est une catégorie des duploïdes et des foncteurs de duploïdes, et Adj est la catégorie des adjonctions et des pseudo-morphismes d'adjonctions. Le résultat suggère que les biais des sémantiques dénotationnelles: indirectes, en appel par valeur, en appel par nom... sont des façons de cacher le fait que la composition n'est pas toujours associative

Formulae-as-Types for an Involutive Negation

International audienceNegation is not involutive in the λC calculus because it does not distinguish captured stacks from continuations. We show that there is a formulae-as-types correspondence between the involutive negation in proof theory, and a notion of high-level access to the stacks studied by Felleisen and Clements. We introduce polarised, untyped, calculi compatible with extensionality, for both of classical sequent calculus and classical natural deduction, with connectives for an involutive negation. The involution is due to the ℓ delimited control operator that we introduce, which allows us to implement the idea that captured stacks, unlike continuations, can be inspected. Delimiting control also gives a constructive interpretation to falsity. We describe the isomorphism there is between A and ¬¬A, and thus between ¬∀ and ∃¬.La négation n'est pas involutive dans le calcul λC car celui-ci échoue à distinguer les piles capturées des continuations. On montre qu'il y a une correspondance " formule pour type " entre la négation involutive de la théorie de la démonstration, et une notion d'accès de haut niveau aux piles étudiée par Felleisen et Clements. On introduit des calculs polarisés, non typés, compatibles avec l'extensionnalité, à la fois pour le calcul des séquents classique et le déduction naturelle classique, avec des connecteurs pour une négation involutive. L'involution est due à l'opérateur de contrôle délimité ℓ qu'on introduit, qui permet d'implémenter l'idée que les piles capturées, contrairement aux continuations, peuvent être inspectées. Délimiter le contrôle donne par ailleurs une interprétation constructive à l'absurdité. On décrit les isomorphismes qu'il y a entre A et ¬¬A, et par conséquent entre ¬∀ et ∃¬

A sequent calculus with dependent types for classical arithmetic

International audienceIn a recent paper, Herbelin developed a calculus dPA$^\omega$ in which constructive proofs for the axioms of countable and dependent choices could be derived via the encoding of a proof of countable universal quantification as a stream of it components. However, the property of normalization (and therefore the one of soundness) was only conjectured. The difficulty for the proof of normalization is due to the simultaneous presence of dependent dependent types (for the constructive part of the choice), of control operators (for classical logic), of coinductive objects (to encode functions of type $\mathbb{N} \to A$ into streams $(a_0,a_1,\ldots)$) and of lazy evaluation with sharing (for these coinductive objects).Building on previous works, we introduce in this paper a variant of dPA$^\omega$ presented as a sequent calculus. On the one hand, we take advantage of a variant of Krivine classical realizability we developed to prove the normalization of classical call-by-need. On the other hand, we benefit of dL, a classical sequent calculus with dependent types in which type safety is ensured using delimited continuations together with a syntactic restriction. By combining the techniques developed in these papers, we manage to define a realizability interpretation à la Krivine of our calculus that allows us to prove normalization and soundness

The duality of construction

International audienc

Failure is Not an Option An Exceptional Type Theory

International audienceWe define the exceptional translation, a syntactic translation of the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC) into itself, that covers full dependent elimination. The new resulting type theory features call-by-name exceptions with decidable type-checking and canonicity, but at the price of inconsistency. Then, noticing parametricity amounts to Kreisel's realizability in this setting, we provide an additional layer on top of the exceptional translation in order to tame exceptions and ensure that all exceptions used locally are caught, leading to the parametric exceptional translation which fully preserves consistency. This way, we can consistently extend the logical expressivity of CIC with independence of premises, Markov's rule, and the negation of function extensionality while retaining η-expansion. As a byproduct, we also show that Markov's principle is not provable in CIC. Both translations have been implemented in a Coq plugin, which we use to formalize the examples

Social grooming by male Budongo chimpanzees.

We review the close relationship between abstract machines for (call-by-name or call-by-value) lambda-calculi (extended with Felleisen's C) and sequent calculus, reintroducing on the way Curien-Herbelin's syntactic kit expressing the duality of computation. We use this kit to provide a term language for a presentation of LK (with conjunction, disjunction, and negation), and to transcribe cut elimination as (non confluent) rewriting. A key slogan here, which may appear here in print for the first time, is that commutative cut elimination rules are explicit substitution propagation rules. We then describe the focalised proof search discipline (in the classical setting), and narrow down the language and the rewriting rules to a confluent calculus (a variant of the second author's focalising system L). We then define a game of patterns and counterpatterns, leading us to a fully focalised finitary syntax for a synthetic presentation of classical logic, that provides a quotient on (focalised) proofs, abstracting out the order of decomposition of negative connectives