Inductive types are a fundamental abstraction mechanism in type theory and proof assistants, supporting the definition of data structures and rich specifications. Nested inductive types extend this mechanism by allowing constructors to use parametric types instantiated with the type being defined (lists or trees of the type to be defined). They are widely used in large verification projects – including CompCert, Iris, Verinum, and MetaRocq – to express complex, structured specifications. Despite this widespread use, the treatment of nested inductive types in both and is unsatisfactory. rejects many practical definitions while accepts definitions for which no usable elimination principle can be defined. Neither system provides reliable automatic generation of elimination principles. As a result, developers must define custom eliminators by hand, leading to fragility, duplication, and significant proof engineering overhead. This paper introduces a novel validity criterion for nested inductive types that guarantees that they can be elaborated into well-formed mutual inductive types. Under this criterion, the elimination principle for the original nested definition is provably equivalent to that of its elaborated mutual form. Our condition strictly generalizes Lean’s current check while ruling out exactly the problematic cases accepted in . Using this foundation, we give a systematic method for automatically generating correct elimination principles for nested inductive types, and we provide an implementation integrated into , along with an implementation plan for .

Initial semantics aims to model inductive structures and their properties, and to provide them with recursion principles respecting these properties. An ubiquitous example is the fold operator for lists. We are concerned with initial semantics that model languages with variable binding and their substitution structure, and that provide substitution-safe recursion principles. There are different approaches to implementing languages with variable binding depending on the choice of representation for contexts and free variables, such as unscoped syntax, or well-scoped syntax with finite or infinite contexts. Abstractly, each approach corresponds to choosing a different monoidal category to model contexts and binding, each choice yielding a different notion of “model” for the same abstract specification (or “signature”). In this work, we provide tools to compare and relate the models obtained from a signature for different choices of monoidal category. We do so by showing that initial semantics naturally has a 2-categorical structure when parametrized by the monoidal category modeling contexts. We thus can relate models obtained from different choices of monoidal categories provided the monoidal categories themselves are related. In particular, we use our results to relate the models of the different implementation — de Bruijn vs locally nameless, finite vs infinite contexts —, and to provide a generalized recursion principle for simply-typed syntax.

In Homotopy Type Theory, cohomology theories are studied synthetically using higher inductive types and univalence. This paper extends previous developments by providing the first fully mechanized definition of cohomology rings. These rings may be defined as direct sums of cohomology groups together with a multiplication induced by the cup product, and can in many cases be characterized as quotients of multivariate polynomial rings. To this end, we introduce appropriate definitions of direct sums and graded rings, which we then use to define both cohomology rings and multivariate polynomial rings. Using this, we compute the cohomology rings of some classical spaces, such as the spheres and the Klein bottle. The formalization is constructive so that it can be used to do concrete computations, and it relies on the Cubical Agda system which natively supports higher inductive types and computational univalence.