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 .

Proof assistants based on dependent type theory—such as Agda , Lean , and Rocq —employ different universes to classify types, typically combining a predicative tower for computationally relevant types with a possibly impredicative universe for proof-irrelevant propositions. Several other universes with specific logical and computational principles have been explored in the literature. In general, a universe is characterized by its sort (e.g., Type, Prop, or SProp) and, in the predicative case, by its level. To improve modularity and better avoid code duplication, sort polymorphism has recently been introduced and integrated in the Rocq prover. However, we observe that, due to its unbounded formulation, sort polymorphism is currently insufficiently expressive to abstract over valid definitions with a single polymorphic schema. Indeed, to ensure soundness of a multi-sorted type theory, the interaction between different sorts must be carefully controlled, as exemplified by the forbidden elimination of irrelevant terms to produce relevant ones. As a result, generic functions that eliminate values of inductive types from one sort to another cannot be made polymorphic; dually, polymorphic records that encapsulate attributes of different sorts cannot be defined. This lack of expressiveness also breaks the possibility to infer principal types, which is highly desirable for both metatheoretical and practical reasons. To address these issues, we extend sort polymorphism with bounds that reflect the required elimination constraints on sort variables. We present the metatheory of bounded sort polymorphism, paying particular attention to the consistency of the resulting constraint graph. We implement bounded sort polymorphism in Rocq and illustrate its benefits through concrete examples. Bounded sort polymorphism with elimination constraints is a natural and general solution that effectively addresses current limitations and fosters the development of, and practical experimentation with, multi-sorted type theories.

Coq is built around a well-delimited kernel that performs type checking for definitions in a variant of the Calculus of Inductive Constructions ( CIC ). Although the metatheory of CIC is very stable and reliable, the correctness of its implementation in Coq is less clear. Indeed, implementing an efficient type checker for CIC is a rather complex task, and many parts of the code rely on implicit invariants which can easily be broken by further evolution of the code. Therefore, on average, one critical bug has been found every year in Coq . This article presents the first implementation of a type checker for the kernel of Coq (without the module system, template polymorphism and η-conversion), which is proven sound and complete in Coq with respect to its formal specification. Note that because of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, there is no hope to prove completely the soundness of the specification of Coq inside Coq (in particular strong normalization), but it is possible to prove the correctness and completeness of the implementation assuming soundness of the specification, thus moving from a trusted code base (TCB) to a trusted theory base (TTB) paradigm. Our work is based on the MetaCoq project which provides meta-programming facilities to work with terms and declarations at the level of the kernel. We verify a relatively efficient type checker based on the specification of the typing relation of the Polymorphic, Cumulative Calculus of Inductive Constructions ( PCUIC ) at the basis of Coq . It is worth mentioning that during the verification process, we have found a source of incompleteness in Coq ’s official type checker, which has then been fixed in Coq 8.14 thanks to our work. In addition to the kernel implementation, another essential feature of Coq is the so-called extraction mechanism: the production of executable code in functional languages from Coq definitions. We present a verified version of this subtle type and proof erasure step, therefore enabling the verified extraction of a safe type checker for Coq in the future.

Proof assistants based on dependent type theory, such as Coq, Lean and Agda, use different universes to classify types, typically combining a predicative hierarchy of universes for computationally-relevant types, and an impredicative universe of proof-irrelevant propositions. In general, a universe is characterized by its sort, such as Type or Prop, and its level, in the case of a predicative sort. Recent research has also highlighted the potential of introducing more sorts in the type theory of the proof assistant as a structuring means to address the coexistence of different logical or computational principles, such as univalence, exceptions, or definitional proof irrelevance. This diversity raises concrete and subtle issues from both theoretical and practical perspectives. In particular, in order to avoid duplicating definitions to inhabit all (combinations of) universes, some sort of polymorphism is needed. Universe level polymorphism is well-known and effective to deal with hierarchies, but the handling of polymorphism between sorts is currently ad hoc and limited in all major proof assistants, hampering reuse and extensibility. This work develops sort polymorphism and its metatheory, studying in particular monomorphization, large elimination, and parametricity. We implement sort polymorphism in Coq and present examples from a new sort-polymorphic prelude of basic definitions and automation. Sort polymorphism is a natural solution that effectively addresses the limitations of current approaches and prepares the ground for future multi-sorted type theories.

One of the central claims of fame of the C oq proof assistant is extraction, i.e., the ability to obtain efficient programs in industrial programming languages such as OC aml , Haskell, or Scheme from programs written in Coq’s expressive dependent type theory. Extraction is of great practical usefulness, used crucially e.g. , in the CompCert project. However, for such executables obtained by extraction, the extraction process is part of the trusted code base (TCB), as are Coq’s kernel and the compiler used to compile the extracted code. The extraction process contains intricate semantic transformation of programs that rely on subtle operational features of both the source and target language. Its code has also evolved since the last theoretical exposition in the seminal PhD thesis of Pierre Letouzey. Furthermore, while the exact correctness statements for the execution of extracted code are described clearly in academic literature, the interoperability with unverified code has never been investigated formally, and yet is used in virtually every project relying on extraction. In this paper, we describe the development of a novel extraction pipeline from C oq to OC aml , implemented and verified in C oq itself, with a clear correctness theorem and guarantees for safe interoperability. We build our work on the M eta Coq project, which aims at decreasing the TCB of Coq’s kernel by re-implementing it in C oq itself and proving it correct w.r.t. a formal specification of Coq’s type theory in Coq. Since OC aml does not have a formal specification, we make use of the M alfunction project specifying the semantics of the intermediate language of the OC aml compiler. Our work fills some gaps in the literature and highlights important differences between the operational semantics of C oq programs and their extraction. In particular, we focus on the guarantees that can be provided for interoperability with unverified code, and prove that extracted programs of first-order data type are correct and can safely interoperate, whereas for higher-order programs already simple interoperations can lead to incorrect behaviour and even outright segfaults. CCS Concepts: • Software and its engineering → Compilers; Functional languages; Formal software verification; • Theory of computation → Type theory.

Reasoning modulo equivalences is natural for everyone, including mathematicians. Unfortunately, in proof assistants based on type theory, which are frequently used to mechanize mathematical results and carry out program verification efforts, equality is appallingly syntactic, and as a result, exploiting equivalences is cumbersome at best. Parametricity and univalence are two major concepts that have been explored in the literature to transport programs and proofs across type equivalences, but they fall short of achieving seamless, automatic transport. This work first clarifies the limitations of these two concepts when considered in isolation and then devises a fruitful marriage between both. The resulting concept, called univalent parametricity , is an extension of parametricity strengthened with univalence that fully realizes programming and proving modulo equivalences. Our approach handles both type and term dependency, as well as type-level computation. In addition to the theory of univalent parametricity, we present a lightweight framework implemented in the Coq proof assistant that allows the user to transparently transfer definitions and theorems for a type to an equivalent one, as if they were equal. For instance, this makes it possible to conveniently switch between an easy-to-reason-about representation and a computationally efficient representation as soon as they are proven equivalent. The combination of parametricity and univalence supports transport à la carte : basic univalent transport, which stems from a type equivalence, can be complemented with additional proofs of equivalences between functions over these types, in order to be able to transport more programs and proofs, as well as to yield more efficient terms. We illustrate the use of univalent parametricity on several examples, including a recent integration of native integers in Coq. This work paves the way to easier-to-use proof assistants by supporting seamless programming and proving modulo equivalences.

Coq is built around a well-delimited kernel that perfoms typechecking for definitions in a variant of the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC). Although the metatheory of CIC is very stable and reliable, the correctness of its implementation in Coq is less clear. Indeed, implementing an efficient type checker for CIC is a rather complex task, and many parts of the code rely on implicit invariants which can easily be broken by further evolution of the code. Therefore, on average, one critical bug has been found every year in Coq. This paper presents the first implementation of a type checker for the kernel of Coq (without the module system and template polymorphism), which is proven correct in Coq with respect to its formal specification and axiomatisation of part of its metatheory. Note that because of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, there is no hope to prove completely the correctness of the specification of Coq inside Coq (in particular strong normalisation or canonicity), but it is possible to prove the correctness of the implementation assuming the correctness of the specification, thus moving from a trusted code base (TCB) to a trusted theory base (TTB) paradigm. Our work is based on the MetaCoq project which provides metaprogramming facilities to work with terms and declarations at the level of this kernel. Our type checker is based on the specification of the typing relation of the Polymorphic, Cumulative Calculus of Inductive Constructions (PCUIC) at the basis of Coq and the verification of a relatively efficient and sound type-checker for it. In addition to the kernel implementation, an essential feature of Coq is the so-called extraction: the production of executable code in functional languages from Coq definitions. We present a verified version of this subtle type-and-proof erasure step, therefore enabling the verified extraction of a safe type-checker for Coq.

International audience

Definitional equality—or conversion—for a type theory with a decidable type checking is the simplest tool to prove that two objects are the same, letting the system decide just using computation. Therefore, the more things are equal by conversion, the simpler it is to use a language based on type theory. Proof-irrelevance, stating that any two proofs of the same proposition are equal, is a possible way to extend conversion to make a type theory more powerful. However, this new power comes at a price if we integrate it naively, either by making type checking undecidable or by realizing new axioms—such as uniqueness of identity proofs (UIP)—that are incompatible with other extensions, such as univalence. In this paper, taking inspiration from homotopy type theory, we propose a general way to extend a type theory with definitional proof irrelevance, in a way that keeps type checking decidable and is compatible with univalence. We provide a new criterion to decide whether a proposition can be eliminated over a type (correcting and improving the so-called singleton elimination of Coq) by using techniques coming from recent development on dependent pattern matching without UIP. We show the generality of our approach by providing implementations for both Coq and Agda, both of which are planned to be integrated in future versions of those proof assistants.

Equations is a plugin for the Coq proof assistant which provides a notation for defining programs by dependent pattern-matching and structural or well-founded recursion. It additionally derives useful high-level proof principles for demonstrating properties about them, abstracting away from the implementation details of the function and its compiled form. We present a general design and implementation that provides a robust and expressive function definition package as a definitional extension to the Coq kernel. At the core of the system is a new simplifier for dependent equalities based on an original handling of the no-confusion property of constructors.

Template-Coq ( https://template-coq.github.io/template-coq ) is a plugin for Coq, originally implemented by Malecha [18], which provides a reifier for Coq terms and global declarations, as represented in the Coq kernel, as well as a denotation command. Initially, it was developed for the purpose of writing functions on Coq’s AST in Gallina. Recently, it was used in the CertiCoq certified compiler project [4], as its front-end language, to derive parametricity properties [3], and to extract Coq terms to a CBV $$\lambda $$ -calculus [13]. However, the syntax lacked semantics, be it typing semantics or operational semantics, which should reflect, as formal specifications in Coq, the semantics of Coq’s type theory itself. The tool was also rather bare bones, providing only rudimentary quoting and unquoting commands. We generalize it to handle the entire Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC), as implemented by Coq, including the kernel’s declaration structures for definitions and inductives, and implement a monad for general manipulation of Coq’s logical environment. We demonstrate how this setup allows Coq users to define many kinds of general purpose plugins, whose correctness can be readily proved in the system itself, and that can be run efficiently after extraction. We give a few examples of implemented plugins, including a parametricity translation. We also advocate the use of Template-Coq as a foundation for higher-level tools.

Homotopy Type Theory promises a unification of the concepts of equality and equivalence in Type Theory, through the introduction of the univalence principle. However, existing proof assistants based on type theory treat this principle as an axiom, and it is not yet clear how to extend them to handle univalence internally. In this paper, we propose a construction grounded on a univalent version of parametricity to bring the benefits of univalence to the programmer and prover, that can be used on top of existing type theories. In particular, univalent parametricity strengthens parametricity to ensure preservation of type equivalences. We present a lightweight framework implemented in the Coq proof assistant that allows the user to transparently transfer definitions and theorems for a type to an equivalent one, as if they were equal. Our approach handles both type and term dependency. We study how to maximize the effectiveness of these transports in terms of computational behavior, and identify a fragment useful for certified programming on which univalent transport is guaranteed to be effective. This work paves the way to easier-to-use environments for certified programming by supporting seamless programming and proving modulo equivalences.

We report on the development of the HoTT library, a formalization of homotopy type theory in the Coq proof assistant. It formalizes most of basic homotopy type theory, including univalence, higher inductive types, and significant amounts of synthetic homotopy theory, as well as category theory and modalities. The library has been used as a basis for several independent developments. We discuss the decisions that led to the design of the library, and we comment on the interaction of homotopy type theory with recently introduced features of Coq, such as universe polymorphism and private inductive types.

Abstract Unification is a core component of every proof assistant or programming language featuring dependent types. In many cases, it must deal with higher order problems up to conversion. Since unification in such conditions is undecidable, unification algorithms may include several heuristics to solve common problems. However, when the stack of heuristics grows large, the result and complexity of the algorithm can become unpredictable. Our contributions are twofold: (1) We present a full description of a new unification algorithm for the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (the base logic of C OQ ), building it up from a basic calculus to the full Calculus of Inductive Constructions as it is implemented in C OQ , including universe polymorphism, canonical structures (the overloading mechanism baked into C OQ 's unification), and a small set of useful heuristics. (2) We implemented our algorithm, and tested it on several libraries, providing evidence that the selected set of heuristics suffices for large developments.

This paper studies forcing translations of proofs in dependent type theory, through the Curry-Howard correspondence. Based on a call-by-push-value decomposition, we synthesize two simply-typed translations: i) one call-by-value, corresponding to the translation derived from the presheaf construction as studied in a previous paper; ii) one call-by-name, whose intuitions already appear in Krivine and Miquel's work. Focusing on the call-by-name translation, we adapt it to the dependent case and prove that it is compatible with the definitional equality of our system, thus avoiding coherence problems. This allows us to use any category as forcing conditions, which is out of reach with the call-by-value translation. Our construction also exploits the notion of storage operators in order to interpret dependent elimination for inductive types. This is a novel example of a dependent theory with side-effects, clarifying how dependent elimination for inductive types must be restricted in a non-pure setting. Being implemented as a Coq plugin, this work gives the possibility to formalize easily consistency results, for instance the consistency of the negation of Voevodsky's univalence axiom.

The use of interactive theorem provers to establish the correctness of critical parts of a software development or for formalizing mathematics is becoming more common and feasible in practice. However, most mature theorem provers lack a direct treatment of partial and general recursive functions; overcoming this weakness has been the objective of intensive research during the last decades. In this article, we review several techniques that have been proposed in the literature to simplify the formalization of partial and general recursive functions in interactive theorem provers. Moreover, we classify the techniques according to their theoretical basis and their practical use. This uniform presentation of the different techniques facilitates the comparison and highlights their commonalities and differences, as well as their relative advantages and limitations. We focus on theorem provers based on constructive type theory (in particular, Agda and Coq) and higher-order logic (in particular Isabelle/HOL). Other systems and logics are covered to a certain extent, but not exhaustively. In addition to the description of the techniques, we also demonstrate tools which facilitate working with the problematic functions in particular theorem provers.

Unification is a core component of every proof assistant or programming language featuring dependent types. In many cases, it must deal with higher-order problems up to conversion. Since unification in such conditions is undecidable, unification algorithms may include several heuristics to solve common problems. However, when the stack of heuristics grows large, the result and complexity of the algorithm can become unpredictable. Our contributions are twofold: (1) We present a full description of a new unification algorithm for the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (the base logic of Coq), including universe polymorphism, canonical structures (the overloading mechanism baked into Coq's unification), and a small set of useful heuristics. (2) We implemented our algorithm, and tested it on several libraries, providing evidence that the selected set of heuristics suffices for large developments.

This paper presents an intuitionistic forcing translation for the Calculus of Constructions (CoC), a translation that corresponds to an internalization of the presheaf construction in CoC. Depending on the chosen set of forcing conditions, the resulting type theory can be extended with extra logical principles. The translation is proven correct---in the sense that it preserves type checking---and has been implemented in Coq. As a case study, we show how the forcing translation on integers (which corresponds to the internalization of the topos of trees) allows us to define general inductive types in Coq, without the strict positivity condition. Using such general inductive types, we can construct a shallow embedding of the pure lambda-calculus in Coq, without defining an axiom on the existence of an universal domain. We also build another forcing layer where we prove the negation of the continuum hypothesis.

International audience