Mechanising Denotational Semantics in Agda
Agda code accompanying the preliminary version of a paper (PDF) presented at MFPS 2026:
Peter D. Mosses, Jesper Cockx, Bernhard Reus: Mechanising Denotational Semantics in Agda
Navigation
On wide displays, the top panel of each page shows:
- About – this page, Background, Meta-notation
- Notation – postulated types for domain constructors and associated operations
- Examples - embedded denotational definitions Examples.LC, Examples.PCF, Examples.Scm
- Properties – postulated equivalences for operations
- Tests - proven equivalences of denotations of Tests.LC and Tests.PCF terms
- Library – modules imported from the standard Agda library (v2.3)
- a toggle between light, dark, and automatic modes
- a search field
- pdmosses/xds-agda@... – a link to a branch of the code repository
The section navigation hierarchy is shown in a sidebar on the left, and the subsections of the current page are shown on the right. On narrow displays, however, the page may show buttons to access the navigation hierarchy and the search field.
The footer of each page shows links to the previous and next pages. When scrolling up, a back-to-top button is shown near the top of the window.
Abstract
Mechanisation of a mathematical definition (also referred to as formalisation) has many benefits. Here, we focus on mechanising denotational semantic definitions of programming languages by embedding them in the Agda language. The Agda type-checker detects and reports any issues with the wellformedness and type correctness of the embedded definitions.
To minimise the effort required, and to facilitate correlation of the original definition with its Agda embedding, mechanisation should not involve significant reformulation or extension. Here, we show how to embed conventional Scott–Strachey denotational definitions in Agda with almost no changes to \(\lambda\)-notation or domain equations.
Agda notation for definitions of types and functions corresponds closely to the conventional meta-notation of denotational semantics. We have developed a collection of Agda modules with postulated types for commonly used domain constructors and their associated operations. Some of our postulates are inconsistent with a classical set-theoretic interpretation of Agda; we conjecture that they would be consistent with an interpretation of Agda in the higher-order intuititionistic logic used by Simpson in his work on synthetic domain theory.
We illustrate our approach with mechanisations of three denotational definitions: Scott’s \(D_\infty\) model of the untyped \(\lambda\)-calculus, Plotkin’s denotational semantics of PCF, and a semantics of a sublanguage of Scheme. In previous work, similar mechanisations in Agda have revealed several unsuspected wellformedness issues in published denotational definitions.
Contributing
Please report any issues that you notice.
Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome, and can be added as Discussions.
Contact
Peter Mosses