2010-02-14

Heap Up (the Bernstein Sums)

Happy Valentine's! The latest Programming Praxis calls for an implementation of the prime Sieve of Atkins. This sieve saves a bunch of operations with a preprocessing phase in which only square-free candidates are retained for latter sieving. For this to be efficient it is necessary to quickly count solutions to certain binary quadratic forms k·x² ± y² = n. Dan Berstein has published an elegant algorithm to quickly generate the solutions to such types of polynomial sums. It crucially requires a priority queue to ensure that the solutions are generated in order and that none is left out. The purpose of this post is to show an implementation of an imperative priority queue using a binary heap.

A binary heap is a sorted data structure over an ordered set (S, ≤): it is a complete binary tree such that every node is less than or equal to either children. The first property is usually called the shape property and amounts to requiring that every level h except possibly the last has exactly 2h nodes; the second property is called the heap property. The shape property makes it convenient (and usual) to represent binary heaps with N elements as arrays of size N: a node with index 1 ≤ jN has children with indices 2·j and 2·j + 1, in that order. The heap property is maintained by two operations siftup and siftdown that bubble up or down elements not necessarily in order into their proper position.

Since a heap is a dynamic structure, I will need a dynamic array or vector to back it up. The following signature will be sufficient for now; I will give the implementation later:

module Vec : sig
  type 'a t
  val make   : unit -> 'a t
  val length : 'a t -> int
  val get    : 'a t -> int -> 'a
  val set    : 'a t -> int -> 'a -> unit
  val push   : 'a t -> 'a -> unit
  val pop    : 'a t -> 'a
end

The intended semantics of a vector is that of normal arrays with the addition that its length can only change via a sequence of push and pop operations, subject to the following laws:

  1. length (make ()) ≡ 0
  2. pop (make ()) ≡ ⊥
  3. push v x; pop vx
  4. push v x; pop v; vv
  5. push v (pop v); vv, if length v > 0
  6. push v x; get v (length v - 1)x

Given Vec as a building block, a binary heap implementing a priority queue has the following signature:

module Heap : sig
  type 'a t
  val make       : ('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a t
  val is_empty   : 'a t -> bool
  val min        : 'a t -> 'a
  val replacemin : 'a t -> 'a -> unit
  val removemin  : 'a t -> unit
  val insert     : 'a t -> 'a -> unit
end (* … *)

Heaps are fully polymorphic since when made they are associated with a comparison function:

end = struct
  type 'a t = { compare : 'a -> 'a -> int; heap : 'a Vec.t; }

  let make compare = { compare = compare; heap = Vec.make (); }

A new heap is backed by an empty vector. The first crucial operation is siftup: it bubbles up the last element (the one with index length h.heap - 1), comparing and swapping it with its parent until the heap property is restored, namely, it becomes less than or equal than any of the children it has encountered on its voyage up the tree:

  open Vec

  let siftup h =
    let rec go cmp v e i =
      let p = (i + 1) / 2 - 1 in
      if p >= 0 && cmp (get v p) e > 0 then begin
        set v i (get v p);
        go cmp v e p
      end else set v i e
    in
    let n = length h.heap in
    go h.compare h.heap (get h.heap (n - 1)) (n - 1)

Note that the parent of a child with index 1 ≤ i < N has index ⌊i/2⌋, but since vectors are 0-based it is necessary to adjust for negative underflow while using integer truncating division (with the usual machine-integer semantics, -1 / 0 == 0 which is not correct). Siftup keeps comparing the node e at index i being inserted with its parent at index p: if it exists and is greater than e they get swapped and the process is repeated until it becomes the new root or it finds a parent with a smaller value. Since the tree is complete, it has exactly ⌊lg N⌋ + 1 levels, which is the number of iterations of this procedure. This iteration is implemented as a tail-recursive lambda-lifted function go for efficiency. The complementary siftdown is completely symmetric to it:

  let siftdown h =
    let rec go cmp v n e i =
      let c =
        let l = i * 2 + 1 in
        let r = l + 1 in
        if r < n && cmp (get v l) (get v r) > 0 then r else l
      in
      if c < n && cmp (get v c) e < 0 then begin
        set v i (get v c);
        go cmp v n e c
      end else set v i e
    in go h.compare h.heap (length h.heap) (get h.heap 0) 0

Instead of bubbling the last element up the tree, siftdown bubbles the first element down. It compares node e at index i with the smaller c of their children 2·i and 2·i + 1 (again making allowances for the 0-based indexing), if they exist. If it does and is less than e, they are swapped and the process repeated until it becomes the last leaf or it finds a pair of children with greater values. By the same analysis than before, this can happen at most ⌊lg N⌋ + 1 times. Again, the iteration is implemented as a tail-recursive lambda-lifted function go. With this done, the priority queue is implemented with a few more lines.

A heap is empty if and only if the underlying vector is:

  let is_empty h = length h.heap = 0

By the heap property, the minimum element is the root of the heap, if it exists:

  let min h =
    if is_empty h then raise Not_found;
    get h.heap 0

A low-level efficient operation is to replace the minimum element by another, maintaining the heap property:

  let replacemin h x =
    if is_empty h then raise Not_found;
    set h.heap 0 x; siftdown h

In order to remove the minimum element another one must be found in its place. This decreases the length of the heap by one, which means that the easiest-to-access candidate is pop h.heap. I don't bother with a guard as by law 2 above pop is partial; however, I must be careful not to try to set the last element into an empty array. This element is placed at the root and sifted down as with replacemin:

  let removemin h =
    let x = pop h.heap in
    if not (is_empty h) then begin
      set h.heap 0 x; siftdown h
    end

Finally, the dual operation of inserting a new element into a heap boils down to placing it at the end (cf law 6 above) and restoring the heap property by bubbling it up:

  let insert h x =
    push h.heap x; siftup h
end

It should be obvious that replacemin h xinsert h x; removemin h where the heap property is kept in suspense by eliminating the intervening siftup h. It only remains to complete the implementation of Vec. This is a completely straightforward amortized O(1) extensible array via doubling in expand. The only hack I use is a sprinkling of Obj.magic to minimize space leaks:

module Vec : sig (* … *) end = struct
  type 'a t = { mutable cnt : int; mutable len : int; mutable arr : 'a array }

  let make () = let len = 16 in
    { cnt = 0; len = len; arr = Array.make len (Obj.magic 0); }

  let length a = a.cnt

  let expand a =
    assert (a.len = a.cnt);
    a.len <- 2 * a.len;
    let arr = Array.make a.len (Obj.magic 0) in
    Array.blit a.arr 0 arr 0 a.cnt;
    a.arr <- arr;
    assert (a.cnt < a.len)

  let get a i =
    if not (0 <= i && i < a.cnt) then failwith "get";
    Array.unsafe_get a.arr i

  let set a i x =
    if not (0 <= i && i < a.cnt) then failwith "set";
    Array.unsafe_set a.arr i x

  let push a x =
    if a.len = a.cnt then expand a;
    Array.unsafe_set a.arr a.cnt x;
    a.cnt <- a.cnt + 1

  let pop a =
    if a.cnt = 0 then raise Not_found;
    a.cnt <- a.cnt - 1;
    let x = Array.unsafe_get a.arr a.cnt in
    Array.unsafe_set a.arr a.cnt (Obj.magic 0);
    x
end

With this, Bernstein's algorithm admits a straightforward implementation. Since it stores triples (y, a, b) where y = p(a) + q(b) for polynomials p and q I need to define a lexicographical ordering on integer triples:

let cint : int -> int -> int = Pervasives.compare

let c3int (p, m, b) (q, n, c) =
  let cmp = cint p q in
  if cmp <> 0 then cmp else
  let cmp = cint m n in
  if cmp <> 0 then cmp else
  cint b c

Now the algorithm takes an enumerating function f to be called with each element of the triple, up to a limit n:

let bernstein_sum p q (f : int -> int -> int -> unit) n =
  let tab = Array.init (n + 1) (fun a -> (p a, a)) in
  Array.sort (fun (p, _) (q, _) -> cint p q) tab;
  let pa, _ = tab.(0) in
  let h = Heap.make c3int in
  for b = 0 to n do
    Heap.insert h (pa + q b, 0, b)
  done;
  while not (Heap.is_empty h) do
    let (y, i, b) = Heap.min h in
    let (pa, a) = tab.(i) in
    if i < n
      then Heap.replacemin h (fst tab.(i + 1) - pa + y, i + 1, b)
      else Heap.removemin h;
    f a b y
  done

As Bernstein himself notes, for sufficiently simple p and q the table of values of p(a) can be dispensed with completely. In any case, the following example nicely exercises the algorithm:

# let sq i = i*i in bernstein_sum sq sq (Printf.printf "%2d^2 + %2d^2 = %d\n") 10 ;;

2010-01-19

A Staggering Sequence

Happy new year! Inspired by N. J. A. Sloane's Seven Staggering Sequences, I started thinking about the Gijswijt sequence, A090822 in the OEIS. What appealed to me was the notion of "word logarithm" implicit in its definition:

We begin with b(1) = 1. The rule for computing the next term, b(n + 1), is again rather unusual. We write the sequence of numbers we have seen so far, b(1), b(2),… b(n) in the form of an initial string X, say (which can be the empty string ∅), followed by as many repetitions as possible of som nonempty string Y. That is, we write b(1), b(2),… b(n) = XYk, where k is as large as possible.

I wrote on paper a direct translation of the definition into an "implicit division" function in Haskell:

divide s y      = k
  where s       = x ++ power k y
        power k = concat . replicate k

This motivated me to try and plunge head-first into it! Given such a "division" operation of one string s by a non-empty suffix y, finding the logarithm is easy. First, we need some imports; then, the logarithm itself:


> import Data.List (tails)
> 
> logarithm s = maximum . map (divide s) . init . tails $ s

That is, find among all the suffixes of s the one that can be factored out from it the greatest number of times. Looking up the suffix repeatedly gives rise to a quadratic algorithm; but any problem on suffixes can be turned into a problem on the prefixes of the reversed strings. Because of this, I'll be sloppy and use prefixes and suffixes interchangeably. Counting the length of the longest common prefix of two lists is easy (edit simplified the original recursive function):


> prefixLength :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Int
> prefixLength xs = length . takeWhile (uncurry (==)) . zip xs

In order to know how many times the string y is a prefix of s, it suffices to find the length of the common prefix between s and an infinity of repetitions of y:


> divide s y = n `div` length y
>   where n  = prefixLength (cycle . reverse $ y) (reverse s)

That's divide, now for the hard part. The sequence definition makes each element depend on all the preceding ones. In effect, it requires a function nest such that nest f e = [e, f [e], f [e, f [e]], f [e, f [e], f [e, f [e]]], …]. I thought of tying the knot on the tails of the result, like this (warning! broken code):

nest f e = xs where xs = e : (map f . tail . inits $ xs)

Unfortunately, inits is too strict, and goes off trying to match a corecursive stream against the empty list. The solution is to explicitly take longer and longer prefixes with a co-induction index:


> nest :: ([a] -> a) -> (a -> [a])
> nest f e       = xs
>   where xs     = e : from 1
>         from i = f (take i xs) : from (i + 1)

(note the funny type). With that in place, the sequence is:


> a090822 = nest logarithm 1

A quick check shows that everything works:

Main Data.Maybe Data.List> fromJust . elemIndex 4 $ a090822
219

(the quadratic complexity of next shows here). Don't try looking for the elemIndex 5 a090822. Read the paper for details.

Thanks to ddarius, opqdonut and Berengal on #haskell.

2009-12-24

Functional Macramé

What is the meaning of an expression like

let rec e = f … e …

known Haskell is as "knot-tying"? As Lloyd Allison explains:

A circular program creates a data structure whose computation depends upon itself or refers to itself. The technique is used to implement the classic data structures circular and doubly-linked lists, threaded trees and queues, in a functional programming language. These structures are normally thought to require updatable variables found in imperative languages…

But first, a bit of motivation. OCaml allows for the construction of cyclic values going through a data constructor. For instance, the following is legal:

let rec ones = 1 :: ones in ones

as the expression is a cons cell. This can be extended naturally to mutually recursive values. For instance, a grammar can be built with:

type 'a symbol = Terminal of 'a | Nonterminal of 'a symbol list list

let arith_grammar =
  let rec s  = Nonterminal [[add]]
  and add    = Nonterminal [[mul]; [add; Terminal "+"; mul]]
  and mul    = Nonterminal [[term]; [mul; Terminal "*"; term]]
  and term   = Nonterminal [[number]; [Terminal "("; s; Terminal ")"]]
  and number = Nonterminal [[digit]; [digit; number]]
  and digit  = Nonterminal (List.map (fun d -> [Terminal (string_of_int d)]) (range 0 9))
  in s

This is a perfectly valid recursive value in OCaml and it is a direct translation from the code in this article. The problem is that an implementation of the Omega monad for breadth-first enumeration of a list of lists requires laziness in an essential way. I'll use a stub (mock?) sequence type:

module Seq = struct
  type 'a cons = Nil | Cons of 'a * 'a t
   and 'a t  = 'a cons Lazy.t
  let rec map f q = lazy (match Lazy.force q with
  | Nil -> Nil
  | Cons (x, q) -> Cons (f x, map f q))
  let rec of_list l = lazy (match l with
  | [] -> Nil
  | x :: xs -> Cons (x, of_list xs))
end

Unfortunately this doesn't work:

type 'a symbol = Terminal of 'a | Nonterminal of 'a symbol Seq.t Seq.t

let rule ss = Nonterminal (Seq.map Seq.of_list (Seq.of_list ss))

let arith_grammar =
  let rec s  = rule [[add]]
  and add    = rule [[mul]; [add; Terminal "+"; mul]]
  and mul    = rule [[term]; [mul; Terminal "*"; term]]
  and term   = rule [[number]; [Terminal "("; s; Terminal ")"]]
  and number = rule [[digit]; [digit; number]]
  and digit  = rule (List.map (fun d -> [Terminal (string_of_int d)]) (range 0 9))
  in s

The dreaded "This kind of expression is not allowed as right-hand side of `let rec'" error raises its ugly head: rule is a function, not a constructor, and OCaml rightly complains that it cannot lazily evaluate a bunch of strict definitions involving computation. In a lazy language, in contrast, the right-hand-side expression is not evaluated until it is needed. So, again, what is the meaning of an expression like

let rec e = f … e …

When the value of e is required, the function f is called with an unevaluated e. If it doesn't use it, the result is well-defined; if it does, this results in a recursive call to f. In a strict language we must be explicit in the delaying and forcing of thunks:

let f' … e … =
  …
  if e_is_needed then … Lazy.force e …
  …
in
let rec e = lazy (f' … e …)

Alas, if f' itself is lazy, the expected code won't work:

let f' … e … = lazy (
  …
  if e_is_needed then … Lazy.force e …
  …
)
in
let rec e = f' … e …

because lazy works syntactically as a constructor in OCaml, again we're told that "This kind of expression is not allowed as right-hand side of `let rec'". This means that we cannot use knot-tying with lazy abstract data types like infinite lists and streams without going explicitly through lazy.

Stepping back and taking a little distance from the problem at hand, let's revisit Allison example of circular lists. He gives essentially this example:

let circ p f g x =
  let rec c = build x
  and build y = f y :: if p y then c else build (g y)
  in c

(which is equivalent to an unfold followed by a knot-tying). This unsurprisingly doesn't work, but using lazy as outlined above does:

let circ p f g x =
  let rec c = lazy (build x)
  and build y = Seq.Cons (f y, if p y then c else lazy (build (g y)))
  in c

and the knot is tied by actually making a reference to the value as desired:

let x = circ (fun _ -> true) id id 0 in let Seq.Cons (_, y) = Lazy.force x in x == y ;;
- : bool = true

A bit of lambda-lifting to make the binding and value recursion distinct and separate gives:

let circ p f g x =
  let rec build y c = Seq.Cons (f y, if p y then c else lazy (build (g y) c)) in
  let rec c = lazy (build x c) in c

This hints at what appears to be a limitation of strict languages, namely that circular computations seem to require explicit binding management in an essential way, either imperative like in this code or by using a method like Dan Piponi's Löb functor. Applying this technique to our grammar makes for tedious work: all the mutually recursive references must be lambda-lifted, and the knot tied simultaneously through lazy:

let rule ss = Lazy.force (Seq.map Seq.of_list (Seq.of_list ss))

let arith_grammar =
  let make_expr   exp add mul trm num dig = rule [[add]]
  and make_add    exp add mul trm num dig = rule [[mul]; [add; Terminal "+"; mul]]
  and make_mul    exp add mul trm num dig = rule [[trm]; [mul; Terminal "*"; trm]]
  and make_term   exp add mul trm num dig = rule [[num]; [Terminal "("; exp; Terminal ")"]]
  and make_number exp add mul trm num dig = rule [[dig]; [dig; num]]
  and make_digit  exp add mul trm num dig = rule (List.map (fun d -> [Terminal (string_of_int d)]) (range 0 9))
  in let
  rec exp = Nonterminal (lazy (make_expr   exp add mul trm num dig))
  and add = Nonterminal (lazy (make_add    exp add mul trm num dig))
  and mul = Nonterminal (lazy (make_mul    exp add mul trm num dig))
  and trm = Nonterminal (lazy (make_term   exp add mul trm num dig))
  and num = Nonterminal (lazy (make_number exp add mul trm num dig))
  and dig = Nonterminal (lazy (make_digit  exp add mul trm num dig)) in
  exp

This can become unworkable pretty quickly, but is a solution! Note that the type of sequences forces me to use an explicit evaluation discipline: rule must return an evaluated expression, but the evaluation itself is delayed inside the Nonterminal constructor.

Allison's paper ends with an alternative for strict imperative languages like Pascal: using an explicit reference for the circular structure, something like this:

let f' … e … =
  …
  if e_is_needed then … Ref.get e …
  …
in
let e_ref = Ref.make () in
let e = f' … e_ref … in
Ref.set e_ref e

where Ref.make has type unit -> 'a, that is, it is magic. Unfortunately, Xavier Leroy himself stated that Obj.magic is not part of the OCaml language :-) (although a quick look shows many a would-be apprentice at work). And in this case it is true that no amount of magic wold make this work in the general case since e_ref must refer to an otherwise dummy value of the appropriate type which gets overwritten with the final result, in effect reserving memory of the necessary size. In specific cases, however, this can be made to work with a bit of care.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-23

Gained in Translation

First of all, I'd like to apologize for the infrequent updates and the lightness of the last few entries. I seldom have time of late for anything but the quickest of finger exercises, but I wanted to put something on writing before the year is over. What better inspiration than one of Remco Niemeijer's terse solutions to the daily Programming Praxis. This week's asks for an implementation of Parnas's permuted indices, and Remco's solution is minimal enough. I translated his Haskell code to almost-verbatim OCaml, interjecting the necessary definitions to make the code read essencially the same way. For example, I needed to translate:

rot xs = [(unwords a, unwords b) | (a, b) <- init $
          zip (inits xs) (tails xs), notElem (head b) stopList]

(n.b: this is Haskell). The function inits returns all the initial segments of a list, so that inits "abc" = ["", "a", "ab", "abc"]. Conversely, tails returns all the tails of a list, so that tails "abc" = ["abc", "bc", "c", ""]. The zip of both lists is the list of all the ways in which you can split a list, so that with our example:

zip (inits "abc") (tails "abc") = [
  ("", "abc"),
  ("a", "bc"),
  ("ab", "c"),
  ("abc", "")
]

and the init of that is every element on that list except for the last one. After writing the necessary infrastructure, the equivalent solution was simple to write, but then I noticed that I could refactor it into something a bit terser. The first opportunity for compression I found was to use an ad-hoc function for splitting a list in every way possible except the last, in effect subsuming init $ zip (inits xs) (tails xs) into a single recursive function:

let rec split_all l = match l with
| []      -> []
| x :: xs -> ([], l) :: List.map (fun (hs, ts) -> x :: hs, ts) (split_all xs)

Classic of text processing tasks in Haskell is the use of functions converting text into lists and vice versa; this required writing some simple helper functions:

let words = Str.split (Str.regexp " ")
and lines = Str.split (Str.regexp "\n")
and unwords = String.concat " "

The permuted index construction must filter a number of stop words:

let stop_list = words "a an and by for if in is of on the to"

As Remco explains, the core function for generating a permuted index finds all the splittings of a given sentence, and uses the head as the context for the tail. The function he gives is a typical generation—filtering—reduction pipeline expressed as a list comprehension. I initally wrote the comprehension as a right fold (this is always possible), and in a second phase I rewrote that into a point-free function more directly expressing the reduction. For that I needed a number of combinators:

let ( % ) f g x = f (g x)

let cross f (x, y) = (f x, f y)

let distrib f (x, y) (z, t) = (f x z, f y t)

let flip f x y = f y x

The composition operator % is an old friend of this blog. The combinator cross lifts a function over a pair, and distrib distributes a binary function over two pairs. The combinator flip swaps the arguments to a curried function. All of this is standard and it allowed me to write:

let rot = List.map (cross unwords) % List.filter (not % flip List.mem stop_list % List.hd % snd) % split_all

This function takes a list of words, splits it every which way, throws away those pairs whose second component (the tail) begins with a stop word, and joins each component of the resulting pairs of words into sentence fragments. The function pretty-printing an index underwent a similar compression: instead of finding the longest fragment separately on each component, I did it in one pass over the list of pairs:

let pp_index xs =
  let l1, l2 = List.fold_right (distrib (max % String.length)) xs (0, 0) in
  List.iter (fun (a, b) -> Printf.printf "%*s   %-*s\n" l1 a l2 b) xs

The function max % String.length composes on the first argument of the curried max, and thus has type string → int → int; in order to distribute over pairs and make the types come out right I needed to use a right_fold instead of a more natural (in OCaml) left_fold, but this is otherwise straightforward. The pretty printing of the index is exactly like in Remco's code, as both OCaml's and Haskell's printf implement the same formats. Putting everything together needs a sort on the second components; I use a (very inefficient) helper function implementing case-insensitive sort:

let ci_compare a b = compare (String.lowercase a) (String.lowercase b)

let permute_index =
  pp_index % List.sort (fun (_, a) (_, b) -> ci_compare a b) % List.concat % List.map (rot % words) % lines

The text is decomposed into lines, each line is further decomposed into words and an index is built for it, the fragmentary indexes are collated and sorted into the final result which is finally printed out. A test gives out the expected result:

let () = permute_index "All's well that ends well.\nNature abhors a vacuum.\nEvery man has a price.\n"
              Nature   abhors a vacuum.
                       All's well that ends well.
     All's well that   ends well.
                       Every man has a price.
           Every man   has a price.
               Every   man has a price.
                       Nature abhors a vacuum.
     Every man has a   price.
          All's well   that ends well.
     Nature abhors a   vacuum.
               All's   well that ends well.
All's well that ends   well.

A point to keep in mind is that permute_index and especially rot would probably have been clearer written in a monadic style, as it emphasizes an "element-at-a-time" view of list processing as I've written before. The downside would have been the need to name every intermediate value being transformed:

let rot xs =
  split_all xs >>= fun (hs, ts) ->
  guard (not (List.mem (List.hd ts) stop_list)) >>
  return (unwords hs, unwords ts)

It seems that, in this sense, monadic beats recursion but point-free beats monadic for conciseness. As it is, the 30 lines comprising this code fit in one short page. Not bad.

2009-11-06

Reflecting on One-Liners

The delightful Futility Closet posted a simple puzzler about the next year after 1961 that reads the same upside down. It is quite easy to see that it will be 6009, and to convince oneself that indeed no smaller number exists a dozen of lines of code suffice.

The key to concision is to lift the syntax and semantics of monads into the problem. Since not every digit is itself a digit upon rotation by 180° (I admit to taking poetic license with the title), it is natural to work with failing computations, otherwise known as the option monad:

let return x = Some x
let (>>=) m f = match m with None -> None | Some x -> f x

Of all the natural operations on monads known and loved by Haskell practitioners, I'll need just a bit of support:

let fmap f m = m >>= fun x -> return (f x)

let lift2m f m n = m >>= fun x -> n >>= fun y -> return (f x y)

let sequence ms = List.fold_right (lift2m (fun x xs -> x :: xs)) ms (return [])

As the last bit of scaffolding, I need a monadized lookup function:

let find l e = try Some (List.assoc e l) with Not_found -> None

These lines are a very well-known part of the standard library of Haskell, so I'm already six over the par. I'm looking for digits that read as digits upon a rotation of 180°. An association list maps those digits to their rotations:

let rotations = [0, 0; 1, 1; 6, 9; 8, 8; 9, 6]

If these numbers were intended to be read on seven-segment displays, I could have added the (2, 5) and (5, 2) pairs. By repeatedly dividing by 10 I can get the list of decimal digits of a number:

let to_digits = let rec go l n = if n = 0 then l else go (n mod 10 :: l) (n / 10) in go []

The opposite operation, building a number from the list of its decimal digits is an application of Horner's Rule:

let of_digits l = List.fold_left (fun x y -> 10 * x + y) 0 l

Reflection is a compact and dense point-free one-liner:

let reflect = fmap (of_digits % List.rev) % sequence % List.map (find rotations) % to_digits

For each digit I find its rotation, if it exists. The result is a list of digit computations, some of those possibly failed. I turn that into a list computation that succeeds only if all its components succeed with sequence. The desired result is built out of the reversed list of rotated digits. Now a number is symmetric if it can be read upside down as itself:

let is_symmetric n = match reflect n with Some m -> n = m | _ -> false

The first year after 1961 that is symmetric is 6009, as expected:

let year = List.hd $ List.filter is_symmetric (range 1962 10_000)

That's it, twelve lines. Composition and range are left as an exercise for the reader.