Paper detail

Abstract Effects and Proof-Relevant Logical Relations

We introduce a novel variant of logical relations that maps types not merely to partial equivalence relations on values, as is commonly done, but rather to a proof-relevant generalisation thereof, namely setoids. The objects of a setoid establish that values inhabit semantic types, whilst its morphisms are understood as proofs of semantic equivalence. The transition to proof-relevance solves two well-known problems caused by the use of existential quantification over future worlds in traditional Kripke logical relations: failure of admissibility, and spurious functional dependencies. We illustrate the novel format with two applications: a direct-style validation of Pitts and Stark's equivalences for "new" and a denotational semantics for a region-based effect system that supports type abstraction in the sense that only externally visible effects need to be tracked; non-observable internal modifications, such as the reorganisation of a search tree or lazy initialisation, can count as `pure' or `read only'. This `fictional purity' allows clients of a module soundly to validate more effect-based program equivalences than would be possible with traditional effect systems.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.