Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Topos Institute Colloquium, 21st of May 2026.
———
Codensity monads provide a universal method to generate complex monads from simple functors. Recently, a wide range of important monads in logic, denotational semantics, and probabilistic computation, such as several incarnations of the ultrafilter monad, the Vietoris monad, and the Giry monad, have been presented as codensity monads, using complex arguments. We propose a unifying categorical approach to codensity presentations of monads, based on the idea of relating the presenting functor to a dense functor via a suitable duality between categories. We prove a general presentation result applying to every such situation and demonstrate that most codensity presentations known in the literature emerge from this strikingly simple duality-based setup, drastically alleviating~the complexity of their proofs and in many cases completely reducing them to standard duality results. Additionally, we derive a number of novel codensity presentations using our framework, including the first non-trivial codensity presentations for the filter monads on sets and topological spaces, the lower Vietoris monad on topological spaces, and the expectation monad on sets.
Topos Institute Colloquium, 21st of May 2026.
———
Codensity monads provide a universal method to generate complex monads from simple functors. Recently, a wide range of important monads in logic, denotational semantics, and probabilistic computation, such as several incarnations of the ultrafilter monad, the Vietoris monad, and the Giry monad, have been presented as codensity monads, using complex arguments. We propose a unifying categorical approach to codensity presentations of monads, based on the idea of relating the presenting functor to a dense functor via a suitable duality between categories. We prove a general presentation result applying to every such situation and demonstrate that most codensity presentations known in the literature emerge from this strikingly simple duality-based setup, drastically alleviating~the complexity of their proofs and in many cases completely reducing them to standard duality results. Additionally, we derive a number of novel codensity presentations using our framework, including the first non-trivial codensity presentations for the filter monads on sets and topological spaces, the lower Vietoris monad on topological spaces, and the expectation monad on sets.
![[Berkeley Seminar] Mike Dodds (Galois) | What works and doesnt selling formal methods in industry
Title: What works and doesnt selling formal methods in industry
Abstract:I joined Galois to do research, but to my surprise I also learned how to sell formal methods to industry and government. In this talk I will explain what I think works, what doesn’t, and what it says about formal methods as a technology. The spoiler is that clients are rational, formal methods are expensive, and this makes most potential projects unviable. As SPECIAL BONUS CONTENT I will also talk about AI and why it will probably change everything.
Date: November 10, 2025 [Berkeley Seminar] Mike Dodds (Galois) | What works and doesnt selling formal methods in industry](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z2bTpsO4fcc/mqdefault.jpg)



![[Oxford Seminar] Greg Neustroev | The Treachery of Certificates: Ceci n’est pas une supermartingale
Oxford Seminar, June 25 2026
You can view the listing for this talk online at https://topos.institute/events/oxford-seminar/talks/2026-06-25_neustroev_treachery.html
Speaker: Greg Neustroev
Full Title: The Treachery of Certificates: Ceci n’est pas une supermartingale
Abstract: To prove that a stochastic system exhibits a desired behavior with high probability (for example, that it reaches a target while avoiding danger) it often suffices to produce a single function on its states satisfying a few pointwise inequalities: a supermartingale certificate. Finding such a function is the hard part; checking one is easy, which is why neural networks, as flexible function-searchers, have become a natural tool for the job.
But a certificate is a static object — a function you can write down — while the object that actually carries the proof is a stochastic process: its dynamic interpretation as it rides the systems randomness. These are not the same thing, and the passage between them is not canonical: one function can induce many supermartingales, depending on how we stop, shift, or time-compensate it. Well build both objects from scratch, make the construction explicit, and see why conflating them — a common slip, even among practitioners — is exactly where soundness is won or lost. [Oxford Seminar] Greg Neustroev | The Treachery of Certificates: Ceci n’est pas une supermartingale](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZO7KmOXGX98/mqdefault.jpg)

![[Berkeley Seminar] Benjamin Brast-McKie | Programmatic Semantics
Title: Programmatic Semantics
Abstract: This talk presents a programmatic methodology which uses the model-checker software that I developed to rapidly prototype semantic theories.
I will begin by presenting a standard methodology in philosophical logic to highlight a number of shortcomings which motivate the programmatic methodology. I will then introduce the model-checker which draws on the SMT solver Z3 to rule out finite countermodels of a user specified size, providing evidence that a logical consequences has no countermodels if in fact there are none. Implementing a programmatic semantics with the model-checker extends the standard methodology by easing the process of exploring and prototyping novel semantic theories.
In addition to facilitating the study of complex semantic theories, the model-checker provides resources for uploading semantic theories to the TheoryLib to facilitate collaboration. Programmatic semantic theories are also modular, making them easy to combine and compare, allowing users to survey the interactions in languages with many operators. Moreover, the computability of a semantic theory provides an objective measure that may be weighed alongside other theoretical virtues.
Although the model-checker is a general purpose utility for working in semantics, applications in hyperintensional semantics are particularly natural given the increased complexity of these semantic systems. Rather than a deficiency, I will characterize well-motivated forms of theoretical complexity as a sign of the maturity of semantics as a discipline. It is in support of both the future development and accessibility of semantics that the model-checker aims to make a contribution. The talk will conclude with a brief demonstration to make the workflow concrete.
Date: 2025-06-17
https://topos.institute/events/berkeley-seminar/ [Berkeley Seminar] Benjamin Brast-McKie | Programmatic Semantics](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZqTpdJKHT_4/mqdefault.jpg)

![[Berkeley Seminar] Michael Arntzenius | UC Berkeley
Title: A type system for finitely supported functions via pointed sets, Part 2
ABSTRACT:
Finite maps, in the form of dictionaries, associative arrays, or tables, are a key data type in most language’s standard libraries, but constructing and manipulating them is generally very explicit and loopful. In this talk I’ll demonstrate work in progress on a type system that can guarantee that functions written directly as lambda-expressions are finitely supported, and therefore can be represented as tables. This yields a higher-level, more declarative syntax, similar to logic programming languages or database query languages.
The semantics of my language live in Set, the category of pointed sets and point-preserving maps. In order to define the support of a function f: A → B, one needs a point nil ∈ B; then support f = {x ∈ A : f x ≠ nil}. In fact, finitely supported maps form a graded monad on Set; they are graded by their domain A. To fully flesh out the semantics and type system, I also need the free/forgetful adjunction between Set and Set*.
Unfortunately the typing rules get quite complex. I’d like to know if there’s a simpler way to accomplish the same goals, or a simpler or more general framework for presenting the type system itself.
Paper preprint for the interested: https://www.rntz.net/files/finite-functional-programming.pdf
Date: April 7, 2026 [Berkeley Seminar] Michael Arntzenius | UC Berkeley](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_A9qrqL2D28/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Oxford Seminar] Q Le | Free PLTL Algebras and A Coalgebraic LTL Extension of Hyperdoctrines
Oxford Seminar, 18th of September 2025
Abstract: In this seminar, I describe the work I had done over the summer of 2025 at the Topos Institute with José Vitor Paiva Miranda de Siqueira. Inspired by the free Boolean/Heyting algebra of a given set, we develop a free-forgetful adjunction between posets and PLTL temporal algebras, where PLTL denotes propositional linear temporal logic. We provide a description of their induced Eilenberg-Moore categories. We describe how this could be used to temporalise systems and logics through hyperdoctrines and connect this to the stream comonad. We end with future research directions, connecting this topic with the cofree comonad of polynomial functors and temporalising doxastic logic. [Oxford Seminar] Q Le | Free PLTL Algebras and A Coalgebraic LTL Extension of Hyperdoctrines](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_IHFAxbHYfM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[DOTS Lectures] 16. Monadicity of double operad algebras
Part of a lecture series on the Double Operadic Theory of Systems (DOTS) presented by David Jaz Myers.
Some material from these lectures can be found in Davids book on categorical systems theory:
https://www.davidjaz.com/Papers/DynamicalBook.pdf [DOTS Lectures] 16. Monadicity of double operad algebras](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_suTwV_UQtc/mqdefault.jpg)