Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Josselin Poiret

dblp:396/5062 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-4463-2773ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 92% Program verification · 8%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Programming languages and type systems › type theory
dependent types
0.912025
All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Programming languages and type systems › language implementation
monomorphization
0.912025
All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Programming languages and type systems › type theory › dependent types
universe polymorphism
0.912025
All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Program verification
proof assistants
0.312025
All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025
Programming languages and type systems › type theory › dependent types
universe hierarchy
0.312025
All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

metatheory · 0.9coq implementation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Divide and Check: Logical Relations, No Algorithms Attached
abstract
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.
Josselin Poiret, Kenji Maillard, Nicolas Tabareau
FSCD1
2025 All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Sort Polymorphism for Proof Assistants
abstract
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.
Josselin Poiret, Gaëtan Gilbert, Kenji Maillard, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, Matthieu Sozeau, Nicolas Tabareau, Éric Tanter
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.1