Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1907.06101

Sharing Equality is Linear

Andrea Condoluci·Beniamino Accattoli·Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The $λ$-calculus is a handy formalism to specify the evaluation of higher-order programs. It is not very handy, however, when one interprets the specification as an execution mechanism, because terms can grow exponentially with the number of $β$-steps. This is why implementations of functional languages and proof assistants always rely on some form of sharing of subterms. These frameworks however do not only evaluate $λ$-terms, they also have to compare them for equality. In presence of sharing, one is actually interested in the equality---or more precisely $α$-conversion---of the underlying unshared $λ$-terms. The literature contains algorithms for such a sharing equality, that are polynomial in the sizes of the shared terms. This paper improves the bounds in the literature by presenting the first linear time algorithm. As others before us, we are inspired by Paterson and Wegman's algorithm for first-order unification, itself based on representing terms with sharing as DAGs, and sharing equality as bisimulation of DAGs.

Explore related subjects

cs.LO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrea Condoluci, Beniamino Accattoli, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen. 2019-07-13. Sharing Equality is Linear. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06101

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Verifying Numerical Methods with Isabelle/HOL

Modern machine learning pipelines and ODE solvers are built on numerical algorithms. Reliable numerical methods are thus a prerequisite for trustworthy machine learning and cyber-physical systems. We evaluate a framework designed for verifying imperative programs and the Isabelle proof assistant as tools for proving the total correctness of four numerical algorithms: the bisection method, the fixed-point method, the perceptron, and the gradient descent algorithm. Our verifications required subtle extensions and generalisations to Isabelle's version of Taylor's theorem and higher-order derivatives. Finally, we reflect on the framework's automation, friendly syntax, and on further requirements to turn it into a verification tool for numerical methods.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2026

Trace-Tree Magmas: Proof-Producing Infinite Countermodels and 28 New Order-Five Austin Classifications

Finite model finders cannot witness an Austin law: an identity whose finite models are all trivial but which has a nontrivial infinite model. We introduce rank-decreasing sparse trace-tree magmas, finitely presented total operations on a countably infinite constructor-tree carrier. The default product pairs its arguments; finitely many positive Horn clauses define exceptions. Our main procedure derives clauses from symbolic evaluation traces. For every model found, it proves functionality of the exceptional relation by descent on constructor size, proves the identity by exhaustive symbolic case analysis, and emits a self-contained Lean 4 certificate. A least simultaneous fixed point gives an implementation-independent semantics, so bounded search may miss models but cannot invalidate certified results. On ETP's 96 order-five Austin candidates, we discover and Lean-verify infinite countermodels for 28 identities with no prior public classification in our audit. They form 14 duality classes and establish 28 new Austin classifications. Four ALPS-known cases bring the total to 32 certified candidates. On Canonical-4187, the deduplicated union of Order5-130 and the 4,141-row ALPS pool, a fresh trace run produces 636 certificates, all accepted by Judge v3. At equal resource limits, Vampire 5.0.1, E 3.5.1, and complete Twee 2.6.1 jointly prove implications in 94 canonical classes. Only Twee returns trusted counter-satisfiable outcomes, for 18 classes; independent finite-side certificates force 16 to be infinite. None of these ATPs emits an explicit model or Lean certificate, and none decides the 28 new classifications. To the best of our audit, this is the first automated system to synthesize this trace-tree model family, generate well-founded inversion proofs, and emit self-contained Lean 4 certificates.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2026

Don't Blame the Model, Verify the Data: An Evaluation of SMT-based Dataset Verification (Extended Version)

The EU AI Act mandates that datasets for high-risk machine learning (ML) systems meet strict quality criteria such as soundness and bias mitigation. While Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solving offers a formal approach to verifying these properties, its scalability in realistic ML settings remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, this work presents the first large-scale empirical study of SMT-based dataset verification on two real-world ML datasets. We systematically evaluate how solver performance is shaped by three key dimensions: the type of data-quality property, the specification style, and the dataset encoding strategy. Our findings demonstrate that SMT-based verification is feasible for practical scenarios, but each dimension shapes it: the property type sets the tractability limit, the specification style drives scalability (exceeding $2{,}000{\times}$ for aggregate properties), and the encoding strategy has a systematic effect, with extracted feature columns performing best.

cs.LO↗