Levy’s call-by-push-value (CBPV) is a language that subsumes both call-by-name and call-by-value lambda calculi by syntactically distinguishing values from computations and explicitly specifying execution order. This low-level handling of computation suspension and resumption makes CBPV suitable as a compiler intermediate representation (IR), while its substitution evaluation semantics affords compositional reasoning about programs. In particular, βη -equivalences in CBPV have been used to justify compiler optimizations in low-level IRs. However, these equivalences do not validate commuting conversions , which are key transformations in compiler passes such as A-normalization. Such transformations syntactically rearrange computations without affecting evaluation order, and can reveal new opportunities for inlining. In this work, we identify the commuting conversions of CBPV, define a commuting conversion normal form (CCNF) for CBPV, present a single-pass transformation into CCNF based on A-normalization, and prove that well-typed, translated programs evaluate to the same result. To avoid the usual code duplication issues that also arise with A-normal form, we adapt the explicit join point constructs by Maurer et al. [2017] . Our results are all mechanized in Lean 4.

We give a denotational account of logical relations for call-by-push-value (CBPV) in the fibrational style of Hermida, Jacobs, Katsumata and others. Fibrations – which axiomatise the usual notion of sets-with-relations – provide a clean framework for constructing new, logical relations-style, models. Such models can then be used to study properties such as effect simulation.

Extending this picture to CBPV is challenging: the models incorporate both adjunctions and enrichment, making the appropriate notion of fibration unclear. We handle this using 2-category theory. We identify an appropriate 2-category, and define CBPV fibrations to be fibrations internal to this 2-category which strictly preserve the CBPV semantics.

Next, we develop the theory so it parallels the classical setting. We give versions of the codomain and subobject fibrations, and show that new models can be constructed from old ones by pullback. The resulting framework enables the construction of new, logical relations-style, models for CBPV.

Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our approach with particular examples. These include a generalisation of Katsumata’s $\top \top$-lifting to CBPV models, an effect simulation result, and a relative full completeness result for CBPV without sum types.

Monads provide a simple and concise interface to user-defined computational effects in functional programming languages. This enables equational reasoning about effects, abstraction over monadic interfaces and the development of monad transformer stacks to allow for multiple effects. Compiler implementors and assembly code programmers similarly virtualize effects, and would benefit from similar abstractions if possible. However, the implementation details of effects seem disconnected from the high-level monad interface: at this lower level much of the design is in the layout of the runtime stack, which is not accessible in a high-level programming language.

We demonstrate that the monadic interface can be faithfully adapted from high-level functional programming to a lower level setting with explicit stack manipulation. We use a polymorphic call-by-push-value (CBPV) calculus as a setting that captures the essence of stack-manipulation, with a type system that allows programs to define domain-specific stack structures. Within this setting, we show that the existing category-theoretic notion of a relative monad can be used to model the stack-based implementation of computational effects. To demonstrate generality, we adapt a variety of standard monads to relative monads. Additionally, we show that stack-manipulating programs can benefit from a generalization of do-notation we call “monadic blocks” that allow all CBPV code to be reinterpreted to work with an arbitrary relative monad. As an application, we show that all relative monads extend automatically to relative monad transformers, a process which is not automatic for monads in pure languages.