A Bi-Directional Refinement Algorithm for the Calculus of (Co)Inductive Constructions

The paper describes the refinement algorithm for the Calculus of (Co)Inductive Constructions (CIC) implemented in the interactive theorem prover Matita. The refinement algorithm is in charge of giving a meaning to the terms, types and proof terms directly written by the user or generated by using tactics, decision procedures or general automation. The terms are written in an "external syntax" meant to be user friendly that allows omission of information, untyped binders and a certain liberal use of user defined sub-typing. The refiner modifies the terms to obtain related well typed terms in the internal syntax understood by the kernel of the ITP. In particular, it acts as a type inference algorithm when all the binders are untyped. The proposed algorithm is bi-directional: given a term in external syntax and a type expected for the term, it propagates as much typing information as possible towards the leaves of the term. Traditional mono-directional algorithms, instead, proceed in a bottom-up way by inferring the type of a sub-term and comparing (unifying) it with the type expected by its context only at the end. We propose some novel bi-directional rules for CIC that are particularly effective. Among the benefits of bi-directionality we have better error message reporting and better inference of dependent types. Moreover, thanks to bi-directionality, the coercion system for sub-typing is more effective and type inference generates simpler unification problems that are more likely to be solved by the inherently incomplete higher order unification algorithms implemented. Finally we introduce in the external syntax the notion of vector of placeholders that enables to omit at once an arbitrary number of arguments. Vectors of placeholders allow a trivial implementation of implicit arguments and greatly simplify the implementation of primitive and simple tactics

Higher-Order Termination: from Kruskal to Computability

Termination is a major question in both logic and computer science. In logic, termination is at the heart of proof theory where it is usually called strong normalization (of cut elimination). In computer science, termination has always been an important issue for showing programs correct. In the early days of logic, strong normalization was usually shown by assigning ordinals to expressions in such a way that eliminating a cut would yield an expression with a smaller ordinal. In the early days of verification, computer scientists used similar ideas, interpreting the arguments of a program call by a natural number, such as their size. Showing the size of the arguments to decrease for each recursive call gives a termination proof of the program, which is however rather weak since it can only yield quite small ordinals. In the sixties, Tait invented a new method for showing cut elimination of natural deduction, based on a predicate over the set of terms, such that the membership of an expression to the predicate implied the strong normalization property for that expression. The predicate being defined by induction on types, or even as a fixpoint, this method could yield much larger ordinals. Later generalized by Girard under the name of reducibility or computability candidates, it showed very effective in proving the strong normalization property of typed lambda-calculi..

Reasoning about modular datatypes with Mendler induction

In functional programming, datatypes a la carte provide a convenient modular representation of recursive datatypes, based on their initial algebra semantics. Unfortunately it is highly challenging to implement this technique in proof assistants that are based on type theory, like Coq. The reason is that it involves type definitions, such as those of type-level fixpoint operators, that are not strictly positive. The known work-around of impredicative encodings is problematic, insofar as it impedes conventional inductive reasoning. Weak induction principles can be used instead, but they considerably complicate proofs. This paper proposes a novel and simpler technique to reason inductively about impredicative encodings, based on Mendler-style induction. This technique involves dispensing with dependent induction, ensuring that datatypes can be lifted to predicates and relying on relational formulations. A case study on proving subject reduction for structural operational semantics illustrates that the approach enables modular proofs, and that these proofs are essentially similar to conventional ones.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2015, arXiv:1509.0282

Consistency and Completeness of Rewriting in the Calculus of Constructions

Adding rewriting to a proof assistant based on the Curry-Howard isomorphism, such as Coq, may greatly improve usability of the tool. Unfortunately adding an arbitrary set of rewrite rules may render the underlying formal system undecidable and inconsistent. While ways to ensure termination and confluence, and hence decidability of type-checking, have already been studied to some extent, logical consistency has got little attention so far. In this paper we show that consistency is a consequence of canonicity, which in turn follows from the assumption that all functions defined by rewrite rules are complete. We provide a sound and terminating, but necessarily incomplete algorithm to verify this property. The algorithm accepts all definitions that follow dependent pattern matching schemes presented by Coquand and studied by McBride in his PhD thesis. It also accepts many definitions by rewriting, containing rules which depart from standard pattern matching.Comment: 20 page