اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدOn the Versatility of Open Logical Relations: Continuity, Automatic Differentiation, and a Containment Theorem
64
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Logical relations are one of the most powerful techniques in the theory of programming languages, and have been used extensively for proving properties of a variety of higher-order calculi. However, there are properties that cannot be immediately proved by means of logical relations, for instance program continuity and differentiability in higher-order languages extended with real-valued functions. Informally, the problem stems from the fact that these properties are naturally expressed on terms of non-ground type (or, equivalently, on open terms of base type), and there is no apparent good definition for a base case (i.e. for closed terms of ground types). To overcome this issue, we study a generalization of the concept of a logical relation, called emph{open logical relation}, and prove that it can be fruitfully applied in several contexts in which the property of interest is about expressions of first-order type. Our setting is a simply-typed $lambda$-calculus enriched with real numbers and real-valued first-order functions from a given set, such as the one of continuous or differentiable functions. We first prove a containment theorem stating that for any such a collection of functions including projection functions and closed under function composition, any well-typed term of first-order type denotes a function belonging to that collection. Then, we show by way of open logical relations the correctness of the core of a recently published algorithm for forward automatic differentiation. Finally, we define a refinement-based type system for local continuity in an extension of our calculus with conditionals, and prove the soundness of the type system using open logical relations.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Appel and McAllesters 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. Howeve
r, 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 Abadis logic for parametricity, but also supports recursively defined relations by means of the modal later operator from Appel, Melli`es, Richards, and Vouillons 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.
We decompose reverse-mode automatic differentiation into (forward-mode) linearization followed by transposition. Doing so isolates the essential difference between forward- and reverse-mode AD, and simplifies their joint implementation. In particular
, once forward-mode AD rules are defined for every primitive operation in a source language, only linear primitives require an additional transposition rule in order to arrive at a complete reverse-mode AD implementation. This is how reverse-mode AD is written in JAX and Dex.
We present semantic correctness proofs of Automatic Differentiation (AD). We consider a forward-mode AD method on a higher order language with algebraic data types, and we characterise it as the unique structure preserving macro given a choice of der
ivatives for basic operations. We describe a rich semantics for differentiable programming, based on diffeological spaces. We show that it interprets our language, and we phrase what it means for the AD method to be correct with respect to this semantics. We show that our characterisation of AD gives rise to an elegant semantic proof of its correctness based on a gluing construction on diffeological spaces. We explain how this is, in essence, a logical relations argument. Finally, we sketch how the analysis extends to other AD methods by considering a continuation-based method.
The theory of program modules is of interest to language designers not only for its practical importance to programming, but also because it lies at the nexus of three fundamental concerns in language design: the phase distinction, computational effe
cts, and type abstraction. We contribute a fresh synthetic take on program modules that treats modules as the fundamental constructs, in which the usual suspects of prior module calculi (kinds, constructors, dynamic programs) are rendered as derived notions in terms of a modal type-theoretic account of the phase distinction. We simplify the account of type abstraction (embodied in the generativity of module functors) through a lax modality that encapsulates computational effects. Our main result is a (significant) proof-relevant and phase-sensitive generalization of the Reynolds abstraction theorem for a calculus of program modules, based on a new kind of logical relation called a parametricity structure. Parametricity structures generalize the proof-irrelevant relations of classical parametricity to proof-relevant families, where there may be non-trivial evidence witnessing the relatedness of two programs -- simplifying the metatheory of strong sums over the collection of types, for although there can be no relation classifying relations, one easily accommodates a family classifying small families. Using the insight that logical relations/parametricity is itself a form of phase distinction between the syntactic and the semantic, we contribute a new synthetic approach to phase separated parametricity based on the slogan logical relations as types, iterating our modal account of the phase distinction. Then, to construct a simulation between two implementations of an abstract type, one simply programs a third implementation whose type component carries the representation invariant.
We study compliance relations between behavioural contracts in a syntax independent setting based on Labelled Transition Systems. We introduce a fix-point based family of compliance relations, and show that many compliance relations appearing in literature belong to this family.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
