We present a domain-specific type theory for constructions and proofs in category theory. The type theory axiomatizes notions of category, functor, profunctor and a generalized form of natural transformations. The type theory imposes an ordered linear restriction on standard predicate logic, which guarantees that all functions between categories are functorial, all relations are profunctorial, and all transformations are natural by construction, with no separate proofs necessary. Important category-theoretic proofs such as the Yoneda lemma and Co-yoneda lemma become simple type-theoretic proofs about the relationship between unit, tensor and (ordered) function types, and can be seen to be ordered refinements of theorems in predicate logic. The type theory is sound and complete for a categorical model in virtual equipments, which model both internal and enriched category theory. While the proofs in our type theory look like standard set-based arguments, the syntactic discipline ensure that all proofs and constructions carry over to enriched and internal settings as well.

We develop bicategory theory in univalent foundations. Guided by the notion of univalence for (1-)categories studied by Ahrens, Kapulkin, and Shulman, we define and study univalent bicategories. To construct examples of univalent bicategories in a modular fashion, we develop displayed bicategories , an analog of displayed 1-categories introduced by Ahrens and Lumsdaine. We demonstrate the applicability of this notion and prove that several bicategories of interest are univalent. Among these are the bicategory of univalent categories with families and the bicategory of pseudofunctors between univalent bicategories. Furthermore, we show that every bicategory with univalent hom-categories is weakly equivalent to a univalent bicategory. All of our work is formalized in Coq as part of the UniMath library of univalent mathematics.

We introduce and develop the notion of displayed categories. A displayed category over a category C is equivalent to “a category D and functor F : D –> C”, but instead of having a single collection of “objects of D” with a map to the objects of C, the objects are given as a family indexed by objects of C, and similarly for the morphisms. This encapsulates a common way of building categories in practice, by starting with an existing category and adding extra data/properties to the objects and morphisms. The interest of this seemingly trivial reformulation is that various properties of functors are more naturally defined as properties of the corresponding displayed categories. Grothendieck fibrations, for example, when defined as certain functors, use equality on objects in their definition. When defined instead as certain displayed categories, no reference to equality on objects is required. Moreover, almost all examples of fibrations in nature are, in fact, categories whose standard construction can be seen as going via displayed categories. We therefore propose displayed categories as a basis for the development of fibrations in the type-theoretic setting, and similarly for various other notions whose classical definitions involve equality on objects. Besides giving a conceptual clarification of such issues, displayed categories also provide a powerful tool in computer formalisation, unifying and abstracting common constructions and proof techniques of category theory, and enabling modular reasoning about categories of multi-component structures. As such, most of the material of this article has been formalised in Coq over the UniMath library, with the aim of providing a practical library for use in further developments.

The standard reading of type theory through the lens of category theory is based on the idea of viewing a type system as a category of well-typed terms. We propose a basic revision of this reading: rather than interpreting type systems as categories, we describe them as functors from a category of typing derivations to a category of underlying terms. Then, turning this around, we explain how in fact any functor gives rise to a generalized type system, with an abstract notion of typing judgment, typing derivations and typing rules. This leads to a purely categorical reformulation of various natural classes of type systems as natural classes of functors.

The main purpose of this paper is to describe the general framework (which can also be seen as providing a categorical analysis of refinement types), and to present a few applications. As a larger case study, we revisit Reynolds’ paper on “The Meaning of Types” (2000), showing how the paper’s main results may be reconstructed along these lines.

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.