Mechanizing the Metatheory of LF

LF is a dependent type theory in which many other formal systems can be conveniently embedded. However, correct use of LF relies on nontrivial metatheoretic developments such as proofs of correctness of decision procedures for LF's judgments. Although detailed informal proofs of these properties have been published, they have not been formally verified in a theorem prover. We have formalized these properties within Isabelle/HOL using the Nominal Datatype Package, closely following a recent article by Harper and Pfenning. In the process, we identified and resolved a gap in one of the proofs and a small number of minor lacunae in others. We also formally derive a version of the type checking algorithm from which Isabelle/HOL can generate executable code. Besides its intrinsic interest, our formalization provides a foundation for studying the adequacy of LF encodings, the correctness of Twelf-style metatheoretic reasoning, and the metatheory of extensions to LF.Comment: Accepted to ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. Preprint

POPLMark reloaded: Mechanizing proofs by logical relations

We propose a new collection of benchmark problems in mechanizing the metatheory of programming languages, in order to compare and push the state of the art of proof assistants. In particular, we focus on proofs using logical relations (LRs) and propose establishing strong normalization of a simply typed calculus with a proof by Kripke-style LRs as a benchmark. We give a modern view of this well-understood problem by formulating our LR on well-typed terms. Using this case study, we share some of the lessons learned tackling this problem in different dependently typed proof environments. In particular, we consider the mechanization in Beluga, a proof environment that supports higher-order abstract syntax encodings and contrast it to the development and strategies used in general-purpose proof assistants such as Coq and Agda. The goal of this paper is to engage the community in discussions on what support in proof environments is needed to truly bring mechanized metatheory to the masses and engage said community in the crafting of future benchmarks

A Case Study on Logical Relations using Contextual Types

Proofs by logical relations play a key role to establish rich properties such as normalization or contextual equivalence. They are also challenging to mechanize. In this paper, we describe the completeness proof of algorithmic equality for simply typed lambda-terms by Crary where we reason about logically equivalent terms in the proof environment Beluga. There are three key aspects we rely upon: 1) we encode lambda-terms together with their operational semantics and algorithmic equality using higher-order abstract syntax 2) we directly encode the corresponding logical equivalence of well-typed lambda-terms using recursive types and higher-order functions 3) we exploit Beluga's support for contexts and the equational theory of simultaneous substitutions. This leads to a direct and compact mechanization, demonstrating Beluga's strength at formalizing logical relations proofs.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0759

Abstracting Syntax

Binding is a fundamental part of language specification, yet it is both difficult and tedious to get right. In previous work, we argued that an approach based on locally nameless representation and a particular style for defining inductive relations can provide a portable, transparent, lightweight methodology to define the semantics of binding. Although the binding infrastructure required by this approach is straightforward to develop, it leads to duplicated effort and code as the number of binding forms in a language increases. In this paper, we critically compare a spectrum of approaches that attempt to ameliorate this tedium by unifying the treatment of variables and binding. In particular, we compare our original methodology with two alternative ideas: First, we define variable binding in the object language via variable binding in a reusable library. Second, we present a novel approach that collapses the syntactic categories of the object language together, permitting variables to be shared between them. Our main contribution is a careful characterization of the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. In particular, we use multiple solutions to the POPLMARK challenge in the Coq proof assistant to point out specic consequences with respect to the size of the binding infrastructure, transparency of the definitions, impact to the metatheory of the object language, and adequacy of the object language encoding

Syntax for free: representing syntax with binding using parametricity

We show that, in a parametric model of polymorphism, the type ∀ α. ((α → α) → α) → (α → α → α) → α is isomorphic to closed de Bruijn terms. That is, the type of closed higher-order abstract syntax terms is isomorphic to a concrete representation. To demonstrate the proof we have constructed a model of parametric polymorphism inside the Coq proof assistant. The proof of the theorem requires parametricity over Kripke relations. We also investigate some variants of this representation

An Open Challenge Problem Repository for Systems Supporting Binders

A variety of logical frameworks support the use of higher-order abstract syntax in representing formal systems; however, each system has its own set of benchmarks. Even worse, general proof assistants that provide special libraries for dealing with binders offer a very limited evaluation of such libraries, and the examples given often do not exercise and stress-test key aspects that arise in the presence of binders. In this paper we design an open repository ORBI (Open challenge problem Repository for systems supporting reasoning with BInders). We believe the field of reasoning about languages with binders has matured, and a common set of benchmarks provides an important basis for evaluation and qualitative comparison of different systems and libraries that support binders, and it will help to advance the field.Comment: In Proceedings LFMTP 2015, arXiv:1507.0759

A dependent nominal type theory

Nominal abstract syntax is an approach to representing names and binding pioneered by Gabbay and Pitts. So far nominal techniques have mostly been studied using classical logic or model theory, not type theory. Nominal extensions to simple, dependent and ML-like polymorphic languages have been studied, but decidability and normalization results have only been established for simple nominal type theories. We present a LF-style dependent type theory extended with name-abstraction types, prove soundness and decidability of beta-eta-equivalence checking, discuss adequacy and canonical forms via an example, and discuss extensions such as dependently-typed recursion and induction principles