The correctness of type-checking implementations for proof assistants based on dependent type theory relies on metatheoretical properties that ensure the decidability of typing, some of which require substantial logical strength. Recent mechanizations of such algorithms have highlighted the importance of separating the algorithmic components of the proof - often intricate but requiring relatively low logical strength - from the logical components, which depend on stronger metatheoretical properties, such as normalization or the injectivity of type constructors. In this work, we revisit the logical relations technique and show how it can be used to derive these metatheoretical properties in a direct and uniform way for a core dependent type theory featuring Π-types, N, ⊥ and a universe U. Our presentation yields a compact and conceptually simplified argument that isolates the logically strong reasoning from the algorithmic core. We argue that this approach scales smoothly to richer type theories, and demonstrate this by extending our construction to Exceptional Type Theory (ExcTT), obtaining the first mechanized canonicity proof for this theory.

The ability to cast values between related types is a leitmotiv of many flavors of dependent type theory, such as observational type theories, subtyping, or cast calculi for gradual typing. These casts all exhibit a common structural behavior that boils down to the pervasive functoriality of type formers. We propose and extensively study a type theory, called AdapTT, which makes systematic and precise this idea of functorial type formers, with respect to an abstract notion of adapters relating types. Leveraging descriptions for functorial inductive types in AdapTT, we derive structural laws for type casts on general inductive type formers.

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.

Certified programming, as carried out in proof assistants and dependently-typed programming languages, ensures that a software meets its requirements by supporting the definition of both specifications and proofs. However, proofs easily break with partial definitions and incremental changes because specifications are not designed to account for the intermediate incomplete states of programs. We advocate for proper support for incremental certified programming by analyzing its objectives and inherent challenges, and propose a formal framework for achieving incremental certified programming in a principled manner. The key idea is to define appropriate notions of completion refinement and completeness to capture incrementality, and to systematically produce specifications that are valid at every stage of development while preserving the intent of the original statements. We provide a prototype implementation in the Rocq Prover, called IncRease, which exploits typeclasses for automation and extensibility, and is independent of any specific mechanism used to handle incompleteness. We illustrate its use with both an incremental textbook formalization of the simply-typed 𝜆-calculus, and a more complex case study of incremental certified programming for an existing dead-code elimination optimization pass of the CompCert project. We show that the approach is compatible with randomized property-based testing as provided by QuickChick. Finally we study how to combine incremental certified programming with deductive synthesis, using a novel incrementality-friendly adaptation of the Fiat library. This work provides theoretical and practical foundations towards systematic support for incremental certified programming, highlighting challenges and perspectives for future developments.

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.

We present an extensive mechanization of the metatheory of Martin-Löf Type Theory (MLTT) in the Coq proof assistant. Our development builds on pre-existing work in Agda to show not only the decidability of conversion, but also the decidability of type checking, using an approach guided by bidirectional type checking. From our proof of decidability, we obtain a certified and executable type checker for a full-fledged version of MLTT with support for Π, Σ, ℕ, and Id types, and one universe. Our development does not rely on impredicativity, induction-recursion or any axiom beyond MLTT extended with indexed inductive types and a handful of predicative universes, thus narrowing the gap between the object theory and the metatheory to a mere difference in universes. Furthermore, our formalization choices are geared towards a modular development that relies on Coq's features, e.g. universe polymorphism and metaprogramming with tactics.

Abstract Dependently typed proof assistant rely crucially on definitional equality, which relates types and terms that are automatically identified in the underlying type theory. This paper extends type theory with definitional functor laws, equations satisfied propositionally by a large class of container-like type constructors $$F : {\text {Type}}\rightarrow {\text {Type}}$$ F : Type → Type , equipped with a $$\textrm{map}_{F} {{\,\mathrm{:}\,}}(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow F\,A \rightarrow F\,B$$ map F : ( A → B ) → F A → F B , such as lists or trees. Promoting these equations to definitional ones strengthens the theory, enabling slicker proofs and more automation for functorial type constructors. This extension is used to modularly justify a structural form of coercive subtyping, propagating subtyping through type formers in a map-like fashion. We show that the resulting notion of coercive subtyping, thanks to the extra definitional equations, is equivalent to a natural and implicit form of subsumptive subtyping. The key result of decidability of type-checking in a dependent type system with functor laws for lists has been entirely mechanized in Coq.

Abstract This document describes the Coq formalisation accompanying the paper Definitional Functoriality for Dependent (Sub)Types, more specifically the content of section 4.

Indexed inductive types are essential in dependently-typed programming languages, enabling precise and expressive specifications of data structures and properties. Recognizing that programming and proving with dependent types could benefit from the smooth integration of static and dynamic checking that gradual typing offers, recent efforts have studied gradual dependent types. Gradualizing indexed inductive types however remains mostly unexplored: the standard encodings of indexed inductive types in intensional type theory, e.g., using type-level fixpoints or subset types, break in the presence of gradual features; and previous work on gradual dependent types focus on very specific instances of indexed inductive types. This paper contributes a general framework, named P unk , specifically designed for exploring the design space of gradual indexed inductive types. P unk is a versatile framework, enabling the exploration of the space between eager and lazy cast reduction semantics that arise from the interaction between casts and the inductive eliminator, allowing them to coexist and interoperate in a single system. Our work provides significant insights into the intersection of dependent types and gradual typing, by proposing a criteria for well-behaved gradual indexed inductive types, systematically addressing the outlined challenges of integrating these types. The contributions of this paper are a step forward in the quest for making gradual theorem proving and gradual dependently-typed programming a reality.

State-separating proofs (SSP) is a recent methodology for structuring game-based cryptographic proofs in a modular way, by using algebraic laws to exploit the modular structure of composed protocols. While promising, this methodology was previously not fully formalized and came with little tool support. We address this by introducing SSProve, the first general verification framework for machine-checked state-separating proofs. SSProve combines high-level modular proofs about composed protocols, as proposed in SSP, with a probabilistic relational program logic for formalizing the lower-level details, which together enable constructing machine-checked cryptographic proofs in the Coq proof assistant. Moreover, SSProve is itself fully formalized in Coq, including the algebraic laws of SSP, the soundness of the program logic, and the connection between these two verification styles. To illustrate SSProve, we use it to mechanize the simple security proofs of ElGamal and pseudo-random-function–based encryption. We also validate the SSProve approach by conducting two more substantial case studies: First, we mechanize an SSP security proof of the key encapsulation mechanism–data encryption mechanism (KEM-DEM) public key encryption scheme, which led to the discovery of an error in the original paper proof that has since been fixed. Second, we use SSProve to formally prove security of the sigma-protocol zero-knowledge construction, and we moreover construct a commitment scheme from a sigma-protocol to compare with a similar development in CryptHOL. We instantiate the security proof for sigma-protocols to give concrete security bounds for Schnorr’s sigma-protocol.

Gradualizing the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC) involves dealing with subtle tensions between normalization, graduality, and conservativity with respect to CIC. Recently, GCIC has been proposed as a parametrized gradual type theory that admits three variants, each sacrificing one of these properties. For devising a gradual proof assistant based on CIC, normalization and conservativity with respect to CIC are key, but the tension with graduality needs to be addressed. Additionally, several challenges remain: (1) The presence of two wildcard terms at any type---the error and unknown terms---enables trivial proofs of any theorem, jeopardizing the use of a gradual type theory in a proof assistant; (2) Supporting general indexed inductive families, most prominently equality, is an open problem; (3) Theoretical accounts of gradual typing and graduality so far do not support handling type mismatches detected during reduction; (4) Precision and graduality are external notions not amenable to reasoning within a gradual type theory. All these issues manifest primally in CastCIC, the cast calculus used to define GCIC. In this work, we present an extension of CastCIC called GRIP. GRIP is a reasonably gradual type theory that addresses the issues above, featuring internal precision and general exception handling. By adopting a novel interpretation of the unknown term that carefully accounts for universe levels, GRIP satisfies graduality for a large and well-defined class of terms, in addition to being normalizing and a conservative extension of CIC. Internal precision supports reasoning about graduality within GRIP itself, for instance to characterize gradual exception-handling terms, and supports gradual subset types. We develop the metatheory of GRIP using a model formalized in Coq, and provide a prototype implementation of GRIP in Agda.

We investigate gradual variations on the Calculus of Inductive Construction (CIC) for swifter prototyping with imprecise types and terms. We observe, with a no-go theorem, a crucial trade-off between graduality and the key properties of normalization and closure of universes under dependent product that CIC enjoys. Beyond this Fire Triangle of Graduality, we explore the gradualization of CIC with three different compromises, each relaxing one edge of the Fire Triangle. We develop a parametrized presentation of Gradual CIC (GCIC) that encompasses all three variations, and develop their metatheory. We first present a bidirectional elaboration of GCIC to a dependently-typed cast calculus, CastCIC, which elucidates the interrelation between typing, conversion, and the gradual guarantees. We use a syntactic model of CastCIC to inform the design of a safe, confluent reduction, and establish, when applicable, normalization. We study the static and dynamic gradual guarantees as well as the stronger notion of graduality with embedding-projection pairs formulated by New and Ahmed, using appropriate semantic model constructions. This work informs and paves the way towards the development of malleable proof assistants and dependently-typed programming languages.

State-separating proofs (SSP) is a recent methodology for structuring game-based cryptographic proofs in a modular way. While very promising, this methodology was previously not fully formalized and came with little tool support. We address this by introducing SSProve, the first general verification framework for machine-checked state-separating proofs. SSProve combines high-level modular proofs about composed protocols, as proposed in SSP, with a probabilistic relational program logic for formalizing the lower-level details, which together enable constructing fully machine-checked crypto proofs in the Coq proof assistant. Moreover, SSProve is itself formalized in Coq, including the algebraic laws of SSP, the soundness of the program logic, and the connection between these two verification styles.

We propose the first framework for defining relational program logics for arbitrary monadic effects. The framework is embedded within a relational dependent type theory and is highly expressive. At the semantic level, we provide an algebraic presentation of relational specifications as a class of relative monads, and link computations and specifications by introducing relational effect observations, which map pairs of monadic computations to relational specifications in a way that respects the algebraic structure. For an arbitrary relational effect observation, we generically define the core of a sound relational program logic, and explain how to complete it to a full-fledged logic for the monadic effect at hand. We show that this generic framework can be used to define relational program logics for effects as diverse as state, input-output, nondeterminism, and discrete probabilities. We, moreover, show that by instantiating our framework with state and unbounded iteration we can embed a variant of Benton's Relational Hoare Logic, and also sketch how to reconstruct Relational Hoare Type Theory. Finally, we identify and overcome conceptual challenges that prevented previous relational program logics from properly dealing with control effects, and are the first to provide a relational program logic for exceptions.

This paper proposes a general semantic framework for verifying programs with arbitrary monadic side-effects using Dijkstra monads, which we define as monad-like structures indexed by a specification monad. We prove that any monad morphism between a computational monad and a specification monad gives rise to a Dijkstra monad, which provides great flexibility for obtaining Dijkstra monads tailored to the verification task at hand. We moreover show that a large variety of specification monads can be obtained by applying monad transformers to various base specification monads, including predicate transformers and Hoare-style pre- and postconditions. For defining correct monad transformers, we propose a language inspired by Moggi's monadic metalanguage that is parameterized by a dependent type theory. We also develop a notion of algebraic operations for Dijkstra monads, and start to investigate two ways of also accommodating effect handlers. We implement our framework in both Coq and F*, and illustrate that it supports a wide variety of verification styles for effects such as exceptions, nondeterminism, state, input-output, and general recursion.

Relational properties describe multiple runs of one or more programs. They characterize many useful notions of security, program refinement, and equivalence for programs with diverse computational effects, and they have received much attention in the recent literature. Rather than developing separate tools for special classes of effects and relational properties, we advocate using a general purpose proof assistant as a unifying framework for the relational verification of effectful programs. The essence of our approach is to model effectful computations using monads and to prove relational properties on their monadic representations, making the most of existing support for reasoning about pure programs. We apply this method in F* and evaluate it by encoding a variety of relational program analyses, including information flow control, program equivalence and refinement at higher order, correctness of program optimizations and game-based cryptographic security. By relying on SMT-based automation, unary weakest preconditions, user-defined effects, and monadic reification, we show that, compared to unary properties, verifying relational properties requires little additional effort from the F* programmer.

We provide a way to ease the verification of programs whose state evolves monotonically. The main idea is that a property witnessed in a prior state can be soundly recalled in the current state, provided (1) state evolves according to a given preorder, and (2) the property is preserved by this preorder. In many scenarios, such monotonic reasoning yields concise modular proofs, saving the need for explicit program invariants. We distill our approach into the monotonic-state monad , a general yet compact interface for Hoare-style reasoning about monotonic state in a dependently typed language. We prove the soundness of the monotonic-state monad and use it as a unified foundation for reasoning about monotonic state in the F ⋆ verification system. Based on this foundation, we build libraries for various mutable data structures like monotonic references and apply these libraries at scale to the verification of several distributed applications.

Dijkstra monads enable a dependent type theory to be enhanced with support for specifying and verifying effectful code via weakest preconditions. Together with their closely related counterparts, Hoare monads, they provide the basis on which verification tools like F*, Hoare Type Theory (HTT), and Ynot are built. We show that Dijkstra monads can be derived "for free" by applying a continuation-passing style (CPS) translation to the standard monadic definitions of the underlying computational effects. Automatically deriving Dijkstra monads in this way provides a correct-by-construction and efficient way of reasoning about user-defined effects in dependent type theories. We demonstrate these ideas in EMF*, a new dependently typed calculus, validating it via both formal proof and a prototype implementation within F*. Besides equipping F* with a more uniform and extensible effect system, EMF* enables a novel mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic proofs within F*.

One main challenge of the theory of computational effects is to understand how to combine various notions of effects in a meaningful way. Here, we study the particular case of the local state monad, which we would like to express as the result of combining together a family of global state monads parametrized by the number of available registers. To that purpose, we develop a notion of indexed monad which refines and generalizes Power's recent notion of indexed Lawvere theory. One main achievement of the paper is to integrate the block structure necessary to encode allocation as part of the resulting notion of indexed state monad. We then explain how to recover the local state monad from the functorial data provided by our notion of indexed state monad. This reconstruction is based on the guiding idea that an algebra of the indexed state monad should be defined as a section of a 2-categorical notion of fibration associated to the indexed state monad by a Grothendieck construction.