skip to main content
article

A theory of effects and resources: adjunction models and polarised calculi

Published:11 January 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence for effectful computation and resource management, specifically proposing polarised calculi together with presheaf-enriched adjunction models as the starting point for a comprehensive semantic theory relating logical systems, typed calculi, and categorical models in this context. Our thesis is that the combination of effects and resources should be considered orthogonally. Model theoretically, this leads to an understanding of our categorical models from two complementary perspectives: (i) as a linearisation of CBPV (Call-by-Push-Value) adjunction models, and (ii) as an extension of linear/non-linear adjunction models with an adjoint resolution of computational effects. When the linear structure is cartesian and the resource structure is trivial we recover Levy’s notion of CBPV adjunction model, while when the effect structure is trivial we have Benton’s linear/non-linear adjunction models. Further instances of our model theory include the dialogue categories with a resource modality of Melliès and Tabareau, and the [E]EC ([Enriched] Effect Calculus) models of Egger, Møgelberg and Simpson. Our development substantiates the approach by providing a lifting theorem of linear models into cartesian ones. To each of our categorical models we systematically associate a typed term calculus, each of which corresponds to a variant of the sequent calculi LJ (Intuitionistic Logic) or ILL (Intuitionistic Linear Logic). The adjoint resolution of effects corresponds to polarisation whereby, syntactically, types locally determine a strict or lazy evaluation order and, semantically, the associativity of cuts is relaxed. In particular, our results show that polarisation provides a computational interpretation of CBPV in direct style. Further, we characterise depolarised models: those where the cut is associative, and where the evaluation order is unimportant. We explain possible advantages of this style of calculi for the operational semantics of effects.

References

  1. Jean-Marc Andreoli, Logic Programming with Focusing Proof in Linear Logic, Journal of Logic and Computation 2 (1992), no. 3, 297–347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Zena M. Ariola, Hugo Herbelin, and Amr Sabry, A Type-Theoretic Foundation of Continuations and Prompts, Proc. ICFP, ACM, 2004, pp. 40–53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2, ch. Lambda Calculi with Types, Oxford University Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nick Benton, A mixed linear and non-linear logic: proofs, terms and models, Proc. CSL, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 933, Springer-Verlag, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nick Benton, Gavin Bierman, Valeria de Paiva, and Martin Hyland, A term calculus for Intuitionistic Linear Logic, Proc. TLCA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 664, 1993, pp. 75–90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Nick Benton and Andrew Kennedy, Exceptional Syntax, Journal of Functional Programming 11 (2001), no. 4, 395–410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Nick Benton and Philip Wadler, Linear Logic, Monads, and the Lambda Calculus, Proc. LICS, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gavin Bierman, What is a categorical model of Intuitionistic Linear Logic?, Proc. TLCA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 902, Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 78–93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J Robin B Cockett and Craig A Pastro, A language for multiplicativeadditive linear logic, Elec. Not. in Theor. Comp. Sci. 122 (2005), 23– 65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Pierre-Louis Curien and Hugo Herbelin, The duality of computation, ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35 (2000), 233–243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Pierre-Louis Curien and Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni, The duality of computation under focus, Proc. IFIP TCS, 2010, Extended version.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Vincent Danos, Jean-Baptiste Joinet, and Harold Schellinx, LKQ and LKT: sequent calculi for second order logic based upon dual linear decompositions of the classical implication, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes 1 (1995), 222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. , A New Deconstructive Logic: Linear Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (3) (1997), 755–807.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Brian Day, On closed categories of functors, Lecture Notes in Mathematics (1970), no. 137, 1–38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Brian Day and Stephen Lack, Limits of small functors, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra (2007), no. 210, 651–663.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeff Egger, Rasmus Møgelberg, and Alex Simpson, The enriched effect calculus: syntax and semantics, Journal of Logic and Computation 24 (2014), no. 3, 615–654.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Andrzej Filinski, Linear Continuations, Proc. POPL, 1992, pp. 27–38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Marcelo Fiore, Linearising Call-By-Push-Value, Note, July 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcelo Fiore, Roberto Di Cosmo, and Vincent Balat, Remarks on Isomorphisms in Typed Lambda Calculi with Empty and Sum Types, Proc. LICS, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002, pp. 147–156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Cormac Flanagan, Amr Sabry, Bruce F. Duba, and Matthias Felleisen, The Essence of Compiling with Continuations, Proc. PLDI, 1993, pp. 237–247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Carsten Führmann, Direct Models for the Computational Lambda Calculus, Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 20 (1999), 245–292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jean-Yves Girard, Linear Logic, Theoretical Computer Science 50 (1987), 1–102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. , A new constructive logic: Classical logic, Math. Struct. Comp. Sci. 1 (1991), no. 3, 255–296.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. , The Blind Spot: Lectures on Logic, European Mathematical Society, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Geun Bin Im and G. Max Kelly, A universal property of the convolution monoidal structure, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra (1986), no. 43, 75–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. G. Max Kelly, Doctrinal adjunction, Lecture Notes in Mathematics (1974), no. 420, 257–280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. , Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 64, Cambridge University Press, 1982, Republished in: Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, No. 10 (2005) pp. 1–136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andrew Kennedy, Compiling with continuations, continued, ICFP, 2007, pp. 177–190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Yves Lafont, B. Reus, and Thomas Streicher, Continuation Semantics or Expressing Implication by Negation, Tech. report, University of Munich, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Olivier Laurent, Etude de la polarisation en logique, Thèse de doctorat, Université Aix-Marseille II, mar 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Paul Blain Levy, Call-By-Push-Value: A Functional/Imperative Synthesis, Semantic Structures in Computation, vol. 2, Springer, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. , Adjunction models for Call-by-Push-Value with stacks, Theory and Applications of Categories 14 (2005), no. 5, 75–110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul-André Melliès and Nicolas Tabareau, Resource modalities in tensor logic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 5 (2010), no. 161, 632– 653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eugenio Moggi, Computational lambda-calculus and monads, Proc. LICS, IEEE Computer Society Press, June 1989, pp. 14–23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Eugenio Moggi, Notions of computation and monads, Inf. Comput. 93 (1991), no. 1, 55–92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni, Focalisation and Classical Realisability, Proc. CSL, LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. , Syntax and Models of a non-Associative Composition of Programs and Proofs, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Paris Diderot, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. , Formulae-as-Types for an Involutive Negation, Proc. CSLLICS, 2014, To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. , Models of a Non-Associative Composition, Proc. FoSSaCS (A. Muscholl, ed.), LNCS, vol. 8412, Springer, 2014, pp. 397–412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni and Gabriel Scherer, Polarised Intermediate Representation of Lambda Calculus with Sums, Proc. LICS 2015, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Chetan R. Murthy, A Computational Analysis of Girard’s Translation and LC, Proc. LICS, 1992, pp. 90–101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. A. John Power and Edmund Robinson, Premonoidal categories and notions of computation, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 5 (1997), no. 7, 453–468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Robert Seely, Linear logic, *-autonomous categories and cofree algebras, Conference on Categories in Computer Science and Logic, AMS Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 92, 1989, pp. 371–382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Peter Selinger, Control Categories and Duality: On the Categorical Semantics of the Lambda-Mu Calculus, Math. Struct in Comp. Sci. 11 (2001), no. 2, 207–260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Philip Wadler, There’s no substitute for linear logic, 8’th International Workshop on the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (1992).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. , A syntax for linear logic, Proc. MFPS, LNCS, no. 802, Springer, 1993, pp. 513–529. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. , Call-by-value is dual to call-by-name, SIGPLAN Not. 38 (2003), no. 9, 189–201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Noam Zeilberger, On the unity of duality, Ann. Pure and App. Logic 153:1 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. , The logical basis of evaluation order, Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A theory of effects and resources: adjunction models and polarised calculi

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!