Michel Parigot

dblp:48/5745 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
17ranked-venue papers
12as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 16 · 11 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Logic in computer science · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 100%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Logic in computer science
proof theory
0.222013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Strong Normalization for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction · LICS 1993
Programming languages and type systems
lambda calculus
0.212013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Logic in computer science › proof theory › constructive proof theory
curry-howard correspondence
0.212013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Logic in computer science › proof theory › structural proof theory
deep inference
0.212013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Programming languages and type systems › language implementation
graph reduction
0.012013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Programming languages and type systems › lambda calculus
optimal reduction
0.012013
Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing · LICS 2013
Logic in computer science
classical logic
0.011993
Strong Normalization for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction · LICS 1993
Logic in computer science › proof theory
natural deduction
0.011993
Strong Normalization for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction · LICS 1993
Logic in computer science › lambda calculus › normalization
strong normalization
0.011993
Strong Normalization for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction · LICS 1993

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

lambda calculus · 0.3deep inference · 0.3reducibility candidates · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Spinal Atomic Lambda-Calculus
abstract
Abstract We present the spinal atomic $$\lambda $$ λ -calculus, a typed $$\lambda $$ λ -calculus with explicit sharing and atomic duplication that achieves spinal full laziness: duplicating only the direct paths between a binder and bound variables is enough for beta reduction to proceed. We show this calculus is the result of a Curry–Howard style interpretation of a deep-inference proof system, and prove that it has natural properties with respect to the $$\lambda $$ λ -calculus: confluence and preservation of strong normalisation.
David Sherratt, Willem Heijltjes, Tom Gundersen, Michel Parigot
FoSSaCS4
2013 Atomic Lambda Calculus: A Typed Lambda-Calculus with Explicit Sharing
abstract
An explicit-sharing lambda-calculus is presented, based on a Curry-Howard-style interpretation of the deep inference proof formalism. Duplication of subterms during reduction proceeds `atomically', i.e. on individual constructors, similar to optimal graph reduction in the style of Lamping. The calculus preserves strong normalisation with respect to the lambda-calculus, and achieves fully lazy sharing.
Tom Gundersen, Willem Heijltjes, Michel Parigot
LICS3
2013 A Proof of Strong Normalisation of the Typed Atomic Lambda-Calculus
Tom Gundersen, Willem Heijltjes, Michel Parigot
LPAR3
2010 A Proof Calculus Which Reduces Syntactic Bureaucracy
abstract
In usual proof systems, like the sequent calculus, only a very limited way of combining proofs is available through the tree structure. We present in this paper a logic-independent proof calculus, where proofs can be freely composed by connectives, and prove its basic properties. The main advantage of this proof calculus is that it allows to avoid certain types of syntactic bureaucracy inherent to all usual proof systems, in particular the sequent calculus. Proofs in this system closely reflect their atomic flow, which traces the behaviour of atoms through structural rules. The general definition is illustrated by the standard deep-inference system for propositional logic, for which there are known rewriting techniques that achieve cut elimination based only on the information in atomic flows.
Alessio Guglielmi, Tom Gundersen, Michel Parigot
RTA3
2000 On the Computational Interpretation of Negation
Michel Parigot
CSL1
2000 Strong Normalization of Second Order Symmetric lambda-Calculus
Michel Parigot
FSTTCS1
1997 Proofs of Strong Normalisation for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction
abstract
Abstract We give two proofs of strong normalisation for second order classical natural deduction. The first one is an adaptation of the method of reducibility candidates introduced in [9] for second order intuitionistic natural deduction; the extension to the classical case requires in particular a simplification of the notion of reducibility candidate. The second one is a reduction to the intuitionistic case, using a Kolmogorov translation.
Michel Parigot
J. Symb. Log.1
1993 Strong Normalization for Second Order Classical Natural Deduction
abstract
The strong normalization theorem for second-order classical natural deduction is proved. The method used is an adaptation of the one of reducibility candidates introduced in a thesis by J.Y. Girard (Univ. Paris 7, 1972) for second-order intuitionistic natural deduction. The extension to the classical case requires, in particular, a simplification of the notion of reducibility candidates.>
Michel Parigot
LICS1
1993 Constant Time Reductions in Lambda-Caculus
Michel Parigot, Paul Rozière
MFCS1
1992 ProPre A Programming Language with Proofs
Pascal Manoury, Michel Parigot, Marianne Simonot
LPAR2
1992 Lambda-Mu-Calculus: An Algorithmic Interpretation of Classical Natural Deduction
Michel Parigot
LPAR1
1992 Recursive Programming with Proofs
Michel Parigot
Theor. Comput. Sci.1
1990 Internal Labellings in Lambda-Calculus
Michel Parigot
MFCS1
1988 Programming with Proofs: A Second Order Type Theory
Michel Parigot
ESOP1
1987 Automata, Games, and Positive Monadic Theories of Trees
Michel Parigot
FSTTCS1
1985 A Logical Approach of Petri Net Languages
Michel Parigot, Elisabeth Pelz
Theor. Comput. Sci.1
1982 Theories D'Arbres
abstract
Les arbres sont les ordres partiels qui vérifient l'axiome supplémental ∀x∀y∀z(y ≤x ∧z ≤ x → y ≤ z ∨ z ≤ y), i.e. l'ensemble des minorants de chaque élément est totalement ordonné. Le principal résultat de cet article concerne l'instabilité des arbres: nous prouvons (§2) qu'aucune théorie d'arbre n'a la propriété d'indépendance, ce qui généralise un theoreme de Poizat [3] sur les ordres totaux. II s'en suit au moyen d'un resultat d'interprétation [4] qu'aucune théorie de structure arborescente n'a la propriété d'indépendance; en particulier ceci vaut pour les arbres colorés. Le §3 est consacré aux arbres stables. II est prouvé qu'un arbre est stable ssi il est superstable ssi il est de hauteur bornée. Sous l'hypothèse de stabilité, les arbres premiers, minimaux, et strictement minimaux sont caractérisés en termes d'al-gébricité.
Michel Parigot
J. Symb. Log.1