skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Reduction monads and their signatures

Published:20 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this work, we study reduction monads, which are essentially the same as monads relative to the free functor from sets into multigraphs. Reduction monads account for two aspects of the lambda calculus: on the one hand, in the monadic viewpoint, the lambda calculus is an object equipped with a well-behaved substitution; on the other hand, in the graphical viewpoint, it is an oriented multigraph whose vertices are terms and whose edges witness the reductions between two terms.

We study presentations of reduction monads. To this end, we propose a notion of reduction signature. As usual, such a signature plays the role of a virtual presentation, and specifies arities for generating operations—possibly subject to equations—together with arities for generating reduction rules. For each such signature, we define a category of models; any model is, in particular, a reduction monad. If the initial object of this category of models exists, we call it the reduction monad presented (or specified) by the given reduction signature.

Our main result identifies a class of reduction signatures which specify a reduction monad in the above sense. We show in the examples that our approach covers several standard variants of the lambda calculus.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a31-ahrens.webm

References

  1. Jiří Adámek. 1974. Free algebras and automata realizations in the language of categories. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae 015, 4 (1974), 589–602. http://eudml.org/doc/16649Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedikt Ahrens. 2016. Modules over relative monads for syntax and semantics. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 26 (2016), 3–37. Issue 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Benedikt Ahrens, André Hirschowitz, Ambroise Lafont, and Marco Maggesi. 2018. High-Level Signatures and Initial Semantics. In 27th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2018) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)), Dan Ghica and Achim Jung (Eds.), Vol. 119. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 4:1–4:22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Benedikt Ahrens, André Hirschowitz, Ambroise Lafont, and Marco Maggesi. 2019. Modular Specification of Monads Through Higher-Order Presentations. In 4th International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction (FSCD 2019) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)), Herman Geuvers (Ed.), Vol. 131. Schloss Dagstuhl–LeibnizZentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 6:1–6:19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Thorsten Altenkirch, James Chapman, and Tarmo Uustalu. 2015. Monads need not be endofunctors. Logical Methods in Computer Science 11, 1 (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Thorsten Altenkirch and Bernhard Reus. 1999. Monadic Presentations of Lambda Terms Using Generalized Inductive Types. In Computer Science Logic, 13th International Workshop, CSL ’99, 8th Annual Conference of the EACSL, Madrid, Spain, September 20-25, 1999, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Jörg Flum and Mario Rodríguez-Artalejo (Eds.), Vol. 1683. Springer, 453–468. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Marc Bezem, Jan Willem Klop, and Roel de Vrijer (Eds.). 2003. Term Rewriting Systems. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 55. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bard Bloom, Sorin Istrail, and Albert R. Meyer. 1988. Bisimulation Can’t Be Traced. In Conference Record of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Diego, California, USA, January 10-13, 1988, Jeanne Ferrante and P. Mager (Eds.). ACM Press, 229–239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Francis Borceux. 1994. Handbook of Categorical Algebra. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Marcelo P. Fiore and Chung-Kil Hur. 2007. Equational Systems and Free Constructions. In ICALP (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Lars Arge, Christian Cachin, Tomasz Jurdzinski, and Andrzej Tarlecki (Eds.), Vol. 4596. Springer, 607–618. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Marcelo P. Fiore and Ola Mahmoud. 2010. Second-Order Algebraic Theories (Extended Abstract). In MFCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Petr Hlinený and Antonín Kucera (Eds.), Vol. 6281. Springer, 368–380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Marcelo P. Fiore, Gordon D. Plotkin, and Daniele Turi. 1999. Abstract Syntax and Variable Binding. In 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Trento, Italy, July 2-5, 1999. 193–202. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcelo P. Fiore and Sam Staton. 2006. A Congruence Rule Format for Name-Passing Process Calculi from Mathematical Structural Operational Semantics. In 21th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2006), 12-15 August 2006, Seattle, WA, USA, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society, 49–58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Marcelo P. Fiore and Daniele Turi. 2001. Semantics of Name and Value Passing. In 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, June 16-19, 2001, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society, 93–104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Makoto Hamana. 2003. Term Rewriting with Variable Binding: An Initial Algebra Approach. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declaritive Programming (PPDP ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 148–159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. André Hirschowitz, Tom Hirschowitz, and Ambroise Lafont. 2019. Modules over monads and operational semantics. (Oct. 2019). https://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/hal- 02338144 working paper or preprint.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. André Hirschowitz and Marco Maggesi. 2010. Modules over monads and initial semantics. Information and Computation 208, 5 (May 2010), 545–564. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Tom Hirschowitz. 2013. Cartesian closed 2-categories and permutation equivalence in higher-order rewriting. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9, 3 (2013), 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Tom Hirschowitz. 2019. Familial monads and structural operational semantics. PACMPL 3, POPL (2019), 21:1–21:28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Bart Jacobs. 1999. Categorical Logic and Type Theory. Number 141 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Delia Kesner. 2009. A Theory of Explicit Substitutions with Safe and Full Composition. Logical Methods in Computer Science 5, 3 (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Bartek Klin. 2011. Bialgebras for structural operational semantics: An introduction. Theor. Comput. Sci. 412, 38 (2011), 5043–5069. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ambroise Lafont. 2019. Signatures and models for syntax and operational semantics in the presence of variable binding. Ph.D. Dissertation. École Nationale Superieure Mines – Telecom Atlantique Bretagne Pays de la Loire – IMT Atlantique. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09162v2 forthcoming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christoph Lüth and Neil Ghani. 1997. Monads and Modular Term Rewriting. In Category Theory and Computer Science, 7th International Conference, CTCS ’97 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Eugenio Moggi and Giuseppe Rosolini (Eds.), Vol. 1290. Springer, 69–86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Saunders Mac Lane. 1998. Categories for the working mathematician (second ed.). Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 5. Springer-Verlag, New York. xii+314 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon D. Plotkin. 2004. A structural approach to operational semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 60-61 (2004), 17–139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Peter Selinger. 2008. Lecture notes on the lambda calculus. CoRR abs/0804.3434 (2008). arXiv: 0804.3434 http://arxiv.org/ abs/0804.3434Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sam Staton. 2008. General Structural Operational Semantics through Categorical Logic. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2008, 24-27 June 2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 166–177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Daniele Turi and Gordon D. Plotkin. 1997. Towards a Mathematical Operational Semantics. In Proceedings, 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Warsaw, Poland, June 29 - July 2, 1997. IEEE Computer Society, 280–291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Reduction monads and their signatures

      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!