Levy’s call-by-push-value (CBPV) is a language that subsumes both call-by-name and call-by-value lambda calculi by syntactically distinguishing values from computations and explicitly specifying execution order. This low-level handling of computation suspension and resumption makes CBPV suitable as a compiler intermediate representation (IR), while its substitution evaluation semantics affords compositional reasoning about programs. In particular, βη -equivalences in CBPV have been used to justify compiler optimizations in low-level IRs. However, these equivalences do not validate commuting conversions , which are key transformations in compiler passes such as A-normalization. Such transformations syntactically rearrange computations without affecting evaluation order, and can reveal new opportunities for inlining. In this work, we identify the commuting conversions of CBPV, define a commuting conversion normal form (CCNF) for CBPV, present a single-pass transformation into CCNF based on A-normalization, and prove that well-typed, translated programs evaluate to the same result. To avoid the usual code duplication issues that also arise with A-normal form, we adapt the explicit join point constructs by Maurer et al. [2017] . Our results are all mechanized in Lean 4.

Many proof assistants allow the use of features and axioms that increase their expressive power. However, these extensions must be used with care, as some combinations are known to lead to logical inconsistencies. Therefore, proof assistants include mechanisms that track which extensions are used in a proof development or module, ensuring that incompatible extensions are not used simultaneously. Unfortunately, existing extension tracking mechanisms are external to the type system. This means that we cannot specify precisely which extensions a definition depends on. Having the ability to write more precise specifications means we are not picking an overapproximation of the extensions needed, which prevents reusing definitions in the presence of incompatible extensions. Furthermore, we cannot refer to definitions that use incompatible extensions even if they are never used in inconsistent ways. The reasoning principles of one extension therefore cannot be used as a metatheory to reason about the properties of an incompatible extension. In this report, I explore the use of the Dependent Calculus of Indistinguishability (DCOI) by Liu et al. for extension tracking. DCOI is a dependent type system with dependency tracking, where terms and variables are assigned dependency levels alongside their types. These dependency levels form a lattice that describes which levels are permitted to access what. To instead track extensions, each set of extensions would correspond to a dependency level, and the lattice would describe how extensions are permitted to interact.

In dependent type theory, being able to refer to a type universe as a term itself increases its expressive power, but requires mechanisms in place to prevent Girard’s paradox from introducing logical inconsistency in the presence of type-in-type. The simplest mechanism is a hierarchy of universes indexed by a sequence of levels, typically the naturals. To improve reusability of definitions, they can be made level polymorphic, abstracting over level variables and adding a notion of level expressions. For even more expressive power, level expressions can be made first-class as terms themselves, and level polymorphism is subsumed by dependent functions quantifying over levels. Furthermore, bounded level polymorphism provides more expressivity by being able to explicitly state constraints on level variables. While semantics for first-class levels with constraints are known, syntax and typing rules have not been explicitly written down. Yet pinning down a well-behaved syntax is not trivial; there exist prior type theories with bounded level polymorphism that fail to satisfy subject reduction. In this work, we design an explicit syntax for a type theory with bounded first-class levels, parametrized over arbitrary well-founded sets of levels. We prove the metatheoretic properties of subject reduction, type safety, consistency, and canonicity, entirely mechanized from syntax to semantics in Lean.

The Dependent Calculus of Indistinguishability (DCOI) uses dependency tracking to identify irrelevant arguments and uses indistinguishability during type conversion to enable proof irrelevance, supporting run-time and compile-time irrelevance with the same uniform mechanism. DCOI also internalizes reasoning about indistinguishability through the use of a propositional equality type indexed by an observer level. As DCOI is a pure type system, prior work establishes only its syntactic type safety, justifying its use as the basis for a programming language with dependent types. However, it was not clear whether any instance of this system would be suitable for use as a type theory for theorem proving. Here, we identify a suitable instance DCOI ω , which has an infinite predicative universe hierarchy. We show that DCOI ω is logically consistent, normalizing, and that type conversion is decidable. We have mechanized all results using the Coq proof assistant.

A hierarchy of type universes is a rudimentary ingredient in the type theories of many proof assistants to prevent the logical inconsistency resulting from combining dependent functions and the type-in-type axiom. In this work, we argue that a universe hierarchy is not the only option for universes in type theory. Taking inspiration from Leivant’s Stratified System F, we introduce Stratified Type Theory (), where rather than stratifying universes by levels, we stratify typing judgements and restrict the domain of dependent functions to strictly lower levels. Even with type-in-type, this restriction suffices to enforce consistency. In , we consider a number of extensions beyond just stratified dependent functions. First, the subsystem employs McBride’s crude-but-effective stratification (also known as displacement) as a simple form of level polymorphism where global definitions with concrete levels can be displaced uniformly to any higher level. Second, to recover some expressivity lost due to the restriction on dependent function domains, the full includes a separate nondependent function type with a floating domain whose level matches that of the overall function type. Finally, we have implemented a prototype type checker for extended with datatypes and inference for level and displacement annotations, along with a small core library. We have proven to be consistent and to be type safe, but consistency of the full remains an open problem, largely due to the interaction between floating functions and cumulativity of judgements. Nevertheless, we believe to be consistent, and as evidence have verified the ill-typedness of some well-known type-theoretic paradoxes using our implementation.

In type systems with dependency tracking, programmers can assign an ordered set of levels to computations and prevent information flow from high-level computations to the low-level ones. The key notion in such systems is indistinguishability : a definition of program equivalence that takes into account the parts of the program that an observer may depend on. In this paper, we investigate the use of dependency tracking in the context of dependently-typed languages. We present the Dependent Calculus of Indistinguishability (DCOI), a system that adopts indistinguishability as the definition of equality used by the type checker. DCOI also internalizes that relation as an observer-indexed propositional equality type, so that programmers may reason about indistinguishability within the language. Our design generalizes and extends prior systems that combine dependency tracking with dependent types and is the first to support conversion and propositional equality at arbitrary observer levels. We have proven type soundness and noninterference theorems for DCOI and have developed a prototype implementation of its type checker.

Contemporary proof assistants such as Coq require that recursive functions be terminating and corecursive functions be productive to maintain logical consistency of their type theories, and some ensure these properties using syntactic checks. However, being syntactic, they are inherently delicate and restrictive, preventing users from easily writing obviously terminating or productive functions at their whim. Meanwhile, there exist many sized type theories that perform type-based termination and productivity checking, including theories based on the Calculus of (Co)Inductive Constructions (CIC), the core calculus underlying Coq. These theories are more robust and compositional in comparison. So why haven’t they been adapted to Coq? In this paper, we venture to answer this question with CIC $\hat{\ast }$ , a sized type theory based on CIC. It extends past work on sized types in CIC with additional Coq features such as global and local definitions. We also present a corresponding size inference algorithm and implement it within Coq’s kernel; for maximal backward compatibility with existing Coq developments, it requires no additional annotations from the user. In our evaluation of the implementation, we find a severe performance degradation when compiling parts of the Coq standard library, inherent to the algorithm itself. We conclude that if we wish to maintain backward compatibility, using size inference as a replacement for syntactic checking is impractical in terms of performance.