Paper detail

A Lazy, Concurrent Convertibility Checker

Convertibility checking - determining whether two lambda-terms are equal up to reductions - is a crucial component of proof assistants and dependently-typed languages. Practical implementations often use heuristics to quickly conclude that two terms are or are not convertible without reducing them to normal form. However, these heuristics can backfire, triggering huge amounts of unnecessary computation. This paper presents a novel convertibility-checking algorithm that relies crucially on laziness and concurrency} Laziness is used to share computations, while concurrency is used to explore multiple convertibility subproblems in parallel or via fair interleaving. Unlike heuristics-based approaches, our algorithm always finds an easy solution to the convertibility problem, if one exists. The paper presents the algorithm in process calculus style and discusses its mechanized proof of partial correctness, its complexity, and its lightweight experimental evaluation.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.