Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. While existing gradual type soundness theorems for these languages aim to show that type-based reasoning is preserved when moving from the fully static setting to a gradual one, these theorems do not imply that correctness of type-based refactorings and optimizations is preserved. Establishing correctness of program transformations is technically difficult, because it requires reasoning about program equivalence, and is often neglected in the metatheory of gradual languages.

In this paper, we propose an axiomatic account of program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus, which we formalize in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT gives an axiomatic account of both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. Based on our axiomatic account we prove many theorems that justify optimizations and refactorings in gradually typed languages. For example, uniqueness principles for gradual type connectives show that if the βη laws hold for a connective, then casts between that connective must be equivalent to the so-called “lazy” cast semantics. Contrapositively, this shows that “eager” cast semantics violates the extensionality of function types. As another example, we show that gradual upcasts are pure functions and, dually, gradual downcasts are strict functions. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parametrized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee.

Gradually typed languages allow statically typed and dynamically typed code to interact while maintaining benefits of both styles. The key to reasoning about these mixed programs is Siek-Vitousek-Cimini-Boyland’s (dynamic) gradual guarantee, which says that giving components of a program more precise types only adds runtime type checking, and does not otherwise change behavior. In this paper, we give a semantic reformulation of the gradual guarantee called graduality. We change the name to promote the analogy that graduality is to gradual typing what parametricity is to polymorphism. Each gives a local-to-global, syntactic-to-semantic reasoning principle that is formulated in terms of a kind of observational approximation.

Utilizing the analogy, we develop a novel logical relation for proving graduality. We show that embedding-projection pairs (ep pairs) are to graduality what relations are to parametricity. We argue that casts between two types where one is “more dynamic” (less precise) than the other necessarily form an ep pair, and we use this to cleanly prove the graduality cases for casts from the ep-pair property. To construct ep pairs, we give an analysis of the type dynamism relation—also known as type precision or naïve subtyping—that interprets the rules for type dynamism as compositional constructions on ep pairs, analogous to the coercion interpretation of subtyping.

In some bicategories, the 1-cells are ‘morphisms’ between the 0-cells, such as functors between categories, but in others they are ‘objects’ over the 0-cells, such as bimodules, spans, distributors, or parametrized spectra. Many bicategorical notions do not work well in these cases, because the ‘morphisms between 0-cells’, such as ring homomorphisms, are missing. We can include them by using a pseudo double category, but usually these morphisms also induce base change functors acting on the 1-cells. We avoid complicated coherence problems by describing base change ‘nonalgebraically’, using categorical fibrations. The resulting ‘framed bicategories’ assemble into 2-categories, with attendant notions of equivalence, adjunction, and so on which are more appropriate for our examples than are the usual bicategorical ones.

We then describe two ways to construct framed bicategories. One is an analogue of rings and bimodules which starts from one framed bicategory and builds another. The other starts from a ‘monoidal fibration’, meaning a parametrized family of monoidal categories, and produces an analogue of the framed bicategory of spans. Combining the two, we obtain a construction which includes both enriched and internal categories as special cases.