An interpretation of dependent type theory in a model category of locally cartesian closed categories
Abstract
Locally cartesian closed (lcc) categories are natural categorical models of extensional dependent type theory.
This paper introduces the “gros” semantics in the category of lcc categories:
Instead of constructing an interpretation in a given individual lcc category, we show that also the category of all lcc categories can be endowed with the structure of a model of dependent type theory.
The original interpretation in an individual lcc category can then be recovered by slicing.
As in the original interpretation, we face the issue of coherence:
Categorical structure is usually preserved by functors only up to isomorphism, whereas syntactic substitution commutes strictly with all type theoretic structure.
Our solution involves a suitable presentation of the higher category of lcc categories as model category.
To that end, we construct a model category of lcc sketches, from which we obtain by the formalism of algebraically (co)fibrant objects model categories of strict lcc categories and then algebraically cofibrant strict lcc categories.
The latter is our model of dependent type theory.
1 Introduction
Locally cartesian closed (lcc) categories are natural categorical models of extensional dependent type theory [
19]:
Given an lcc category
, one interprets

contexts
as objects of
;

(simultaneous) substitutions from context
to context
as morphisms
in
;

types
as morphisms
in
with codomain
; and

terms
as sections
to the interpretations of types.
A context extension
is interpreted as the domain of
.
Application of a substitution
to a type
is interpreted as pullback
and similarly for terms
.
By definition, the pullback functors
in lcc categories
have both left and right adjoints
, and these are used for interpreting
types and
types.
For example, the interpretation of a pair of types
and
is a composable pair of morphisms
, and then the dependent product type
is interpreted as
, which is an object of
, i.e. a morphism into
.
However, there is a slight mismatch:
Syntactic substitution is functorial and commutes strictly with type formers, whereas pullback is generally only pseudofunctorial and hence preserves universal objects only up to isomorphism.
Here functoriality of substitution means that if one has a sequence
of substitutions, then we have equalities
and
, i.e. substituting in succession yields the same result as substituting with the composition.
For pullback functors, however, we are only guaranteed a natural isomorphism
.
Similarly, in type theory we have
(where
denotes the weakening of
along
), whereas for pullback functors there merely exist isomorphisms
.
In response to these problems, several notions of models with strict pullback operations were introduced, e.g. categories with families (cwfs) [
11], and coherence techniques were developed to “strictify” weak models such as lcc categories to obtain models with wellbehaved substitution [
9,
13,
15].
Thus to interpret dependent type theory in some lcc category
, one first constructs an equivalence
such that
can be endowed with the structure of a strict model of type theory (say, cwf structure), and then interprets type theory in
.
In this paper we construct cwf structure on the category of all lcc categories instead of cwf structure on some specific lcc category.
First note that the classical interpretation of type theory in an lcc category
is essentially an interpretation in the slice categories of
:

Objects
can be identified with slice categories
.

Morphisms
can be identified with lcc functors
which commute with the pullback functors
and
.

Morphisms
with codomain
can be identified with the objects of the slice categories
.

Sections
can be identified with morphisms
with
the terminal object in the slice category
.
Removing all reference to the base category
, we may now attempt to interpret

each context
as a separate lcc category;

a substitution from
to
as an lcc functor
;

types
as objects
; and

terms
as morphisms
from a terminal object
to
.
In the original interpretation, substitution in types and terms is defined by the pullback functor
along a morphism
.
In our new interpretation,
is already an lcc functor, which we simply apply to objects and morphisms of lcc categories.
The idea that different contexts should be understood as different categories is by no means novel, and indeed widespread among researchers of geometric logic; see e.g. [
20, section 4.5].
Not surprisingly, some of the ideas in this paper have independently already been explored, in more explicit form, in [
21] for geometric logic.
To my knowledge, however, an interpretation of type theory along those lines, especially one with strict substitution, has never been spelled out explicitly, and the present paper is an attempt at filling this gap.
Like Seely's original interpretation, the naive interpretation in the category of lcc categories outlined above suffers from coherence issues:
Lcc functors preserve lcc structure up to isomorphism, but not necessarily up to equality, and the latter would be required for a model of type theory.
Even worse, our interpretation of contexts as lcc categories does not admit wellbehaved context extensions.
Recall that for a context
and a type
in a cwf, a context extension consists of a context morphism
and a term
such that for every morphism
and term
there is a unique morphism
over
such that
.
In our case a context morphism is an lcc functor in the opposite direction.
Thus a context extension of an lcc category
by
would consist of an lcc functor
and a morphism
in
, and
would have to be suitably initial.
At first sight it might seem that the slice category
is a good candidate:
Pullback along the unique map
defines an lcc functor
.
The terminal object of
is the identity on
, and applying
to
itself yields the first projection
.
Thus the diagonal
is a term
.
The problem is that, while this data is indeed universal, it is only so in the bicategorical sense (see Lemma
29):
Given an lcc functor
and term
, we obtain an lcc functor
however,
commutes with
and
only up to natural isomorphism, the equation
holds only up to this natural isomorphism, and
is unique only up to unique isomorphism.
The issue with context extensions can be understood from the perspective of comprehension categories, an alternative notion of model of type theory, as follows.
Our cwf is constructed on the opposite of
, the category of lcc categories and lcc functors.
The corresponding comprehension category should thus consist of a Grothendieck fibration
and a functor
to the arrow category of
such that
commutes and
is a pullback square for each cartesian morphism
in
.
The data of a Grothendieck fibration
as above is equivalent to a (covariant) functor
via the Grothendieck construction, and here we simply take the forgetful functor.
Thus the objects of
are pairs
such that
is an lcc category and
, and a morphism
in
is a pair
of lcc functor
and morphism
in
.
The functor
should assign to objects
of
the projection of the corresponding context extension, hence we define
as the pullback functor to the slice category.
The cartesian morphisms of
are those with invertible vertical components
, so they are given up to isomorphism by pairs of the form
.
The images of such morphisms under
are squares
(1)
(1)
in
.
For
to be a comprehension category, they would have to be pushout squares, but in fact they are bipushout squares:
They satisfy the universal property of pushouts up to unique isomorphism, but not up to equality.
If
does not preserve pullback squares up to strict equality, then the square
(1) commutes only up to isomorphism, not equality.
Thus
is not even a functor but a bifunctor.
Usually when one considers coherence problems for type theory, the problem lies in the fibration
, which is often not strict, and it suffices to change the total category
while leaving the base unaltered.
Our fibration
is already strict, but it does not support substitution stable type constructors.
Here the main problem is the base category, however:
The required pullback diagrams exist only in the bicategorical sense.
Thus the usual constructions [
13,
15] are not applicable.
The goal must thus be to find a category that is (bi)equivalent to
in which we can replace the bipushout squares
(1) by 1categorical pushouts.
Our tool of choice to that end will be
model category theory (see e.g. [
12]).
Model categories are presentations of higher categories as ordinary 1categories with additional structure.
Crucially, model categories allow the computation of higher (co)limits as ordinary 1categorical (co)limits under suitable hypotheses.
The underlying 1category of the model category presenting a higher category is not unique, and some presentations are more suitable for our purposes than others.
We explore three Quillen equivalent model categories, all of which encode the same higher category of lcc categories, and show that the third one indeed admits the structure of a model of dependent type theory.
Because of its central role in the paper, the reader is thus expected to be familiar with some notions of model category theory.
We make extensive use of the notion of algebraically (co)fibrant object in a model category [
18,
7], but the relevant results are explained where necessary and can be taken as black boxes for the purpose of this paper.
Because of the condition on enrichment in Theorem
21, all model categories considered here are proved to be model
categories, that is, model categories enriched over the category of groupoids with their canonical model structure.
See [
3] for background on enriched model category theory, [
4] for the canonical model category of groupoids, and [
14] for the closely related model
categories.
While it is more common to work with the more general simplicially enriched model categories, the fact that the higher category of lcc categories is 2truncated affords us to work with simpler groupoid enrichments instead.
In Section
2 we construct the model category
of
lcc sketches, a left Bousfield localization of an instance of Isaev's model category structure on marked objects [
2].
Lcc sketches are to lcc categories as finite limit sketches are to finite limit categories.
Thus lcc sketches are categories with some diagrams marked as supposed to correspond to a universal object of lcc categories, but marked diagrams do not have to actually satisfy the universal property.
The model category structure is set up such that every lcc sketch generates an lcc category via fibrant replacement, and lcc sketches are equivalent if and only if they generate equivalent lcc categories.
In Section
3 we define the model category
of
strict lcc categories.
Strict lcc categories are the algebraically fibrant objects of
, that is, they are objects of
equipped with canonical lifts against trivial cofibrations witnessing their fibrancy in
.
Such canonical lifts correspond to canonical choices of universal objects in lcc categories, and the morphisms in
preserve these canonical choices not only up to isomorphism but up to equality.
Section
4 finally establishes the model of type theory in the opposite of
, the model category of
algebraically cofibrant objects in
.
The objects of
are strict lcc categories
such that every (possibly nonstrict) lcc functor
has a canonical strict isomorph.
This additional structure is crucial to reconcile the context extension operation, which is given by freely adjoining a morphism to a strict lcc category, with taking slice categories.
In Section
5 we show that the cwf structure on
can be used to rectify Seely's original interpretation in a given lcc category
.
This is done by choosing an equivalent lcc category
with
, and then
inherits cwf structure from the core of the slice cwf
.
Acknowledgements.
This paper benefited significantly from input by several members of the research community.
I would like to thank the organizers of the TYPES workshop 2019 and the HoTT conference 2019 for giving me the opportunity to present preliminary versions of the material in this paper.
Conversations with Emily Riehl, Karol Szumiło and David White made me aware that the constructions in this paper can be phrased in terms of model category theory.
Daniel Gratzer pointed out to me the biuniversal property of slice categories.
Valery Isaev explained to me some aspects of the model category structure on marked objects.
I would like to thank my advisor Bas Spitters for his advice on this paper, which is part of my PhD research.
This work was supported by the Air Force Office and Scientific Research project “Homotopy Type Theory and Probabilistic Computation”, grant number 12595060.
2 Lcc sketches
This section is concerned with the model category
of lcc sketches.
is constructed as the left Bousfield localization of a model category of lccmarked objects, an instance of Isaev's model category structure on marked objects.
Definition 1 ([2] Definition 2.1).
Let
be a category and let
be a diagram in
.
An
()marked object is given by an object
in
and a subfunctor
of
.
A map of the form
is
marked if
.
A morphism of
marked objects is a markingpreserving morphism of underlying objects in
, i.e. a morphism
such that the image of
under postcomposition by
is contained in
.
The category of
marked objects is denoted by
.
The forgetful functor
has a left and right adjoint:
Its left adjoint
is given by equipping an object
of
with the minimal marking
, while the right adjoint
equips objects with their maximal marking
.
In our application,
is the category of (sufficiently small) categories, and
contains diagrams corresponding to the shapes (e.g. a squares for pullbacks) of lcc structure.
Definition 2.
The subcategory
of
lcc shapes is given as follows:
Its objects are the three diagrams
,
and
.
is given by the category with a single object
and no nontrivial morphisms; it corresponds to terminal objects.
is the freestanding noncommutative square
and corresponds to pullback squares.
is the freestanding noncommutative diagram
and corresponds to dependent products
and their evaluation maps
.
The only nontrivial functor in
is the inclusion of
into
as indicated by the variable names.
It corresponds to the requirement that the domain of the evaluation map of dependent products must be a suitable pullback.
We obtain the category
of
lccmarked categories.
Now suppose that
is a model category.
Let
be the quotient functor to the homotopy category.
A marking
of some
induces a canonical marking
on
by taking
to be the image of
under
.
Thus a morphism
in
is marked if and only if it has a preimage under
which is marked.
Theorem 3 ([2] Theorem 3.3).
Let
be a combinatorial model category and let
be a diagram in
such that every object in the image of
is cofibrant.
Then the following defines the structure of a combinatorial model category on
:

A morphism
in
is a cofibration if and only if
is a cofibration in
.

A morphism
in
is a weak equivalence if and only if
is an isomorphism in
.
A marked object
is fibrant if and only if
is fibrant in
and the markings of
are stable under homotopy; that is, if
are homotopic maps in
and
is marked, then
is marked.
The adjunctions
and
are Quillen adjunctions.
Remark 4.
The description of weak equivalences in Theorem
3 does not appear as stated in [
2], but follows easily from results therein.
Let
be a fibrant replacement functor.
By [
2, lemma 2.5], a map
is a weak equivalence in
if and only if
is a weak equivalence in
and for every diagram (of solid arrows)
(2)
(2)
in which the outer square commutes up to homotopy and
is marked, there exists a marked map
as indicated such that
.
(
is not required to commute with
and
.)
Now assume that
satisfies this condition and let us prove that
is an isomorphism of induced marked objects in the homotopy category.
is an isomorphism in
, so it suffices to show that
preserves markings.
By definition, every marked morphism of
is of the form
for some marked
.
Because
is cofibrant and
is fibrant, the map
has a preimage
under
.
As
is cofibrant,
is fibrant and
, there is a homotopy
.
By assumption, there exists a marked map
such that
, thus
is marked.
To prove the other direction of the equivalence, assume that
is an isomorphism of marked objects and let
be as in diagram
(2).
is marked, hence has a preimage
under
which is marked.
We have
because postcomposition of both sides with the isomorphism
gives equal results.
is cofibrant and
is fibrant, thus
.
Lemma 5.
Let
and
be as in Theorem
3.

If
is a left proper model category, then
is a left proper model category.

If
is a model
category, then
admits the structure of a model
category such that
and
lift to Quillen
adjunctions.
Proof.
1.
Let
be a pushout square in
such that
is a weak equivalence.
is left proper, so
is invertible as a map in
.
A map
is marked if and only if it factors via a marked map
or via a marked map
.
In the first case,
which is marked because
is a weak equivalence.
Otherwise
which is also marked.
We have shown that
is an isomorphism of marked objects in
, thus
is a weak equivalence.
2.
Let
and
be marked objects.
We define the mapping groupoid
as the full subgroupoid of
of marking preserving maps.
is complete and cocomplete as a 1category.
Thus if we construct tensors
and powers
for all
and
it follows that
is also complete and cocomplete as a
category.
The underlying object of powers and copowers is constructed in
, i.e.
and
.
A map
is marked if and only if the composite
is marked for every
(which we identify with a map
).
Similarly, a map
is marked if and only if it factors as
for some object
in
and marked
.
It follows by [
1, Theorem 4.85] from the preservation of tensors and powers by
that the 1categorical adjunctions
and
extend to
adjunctions.
It remains to show that the tensoring
is a Quillen bifunctor.
For this we need to prove that if
is a cofibration of groupoids and
is a cofibration of marked objects, then their pushoutproduct
is a cofibration, and that it is a weak equivalence if either
or
is furthermore a weak equivalence.
The first part follows directly from the same property for the
enrichment of
and the fact that
preserves tensors and pushouts, and reflects cofibrations.
In the second part we have in both cases that
is a weak equivalence in
.
Thus we only need to show that
reflects a given marked morphism
in
.
It follows from the construction of
that for any such
there exists
such that
for some marked map
.
Assume first that
is a trivial cofibration, i.e. an equivalence of groupoids that is injective on objects.
Then there exists
such that
and
are isomorphic objects of
.
is (left) homotopic to
, which factors via the marked map
.
It follows that
reflects marked morphisms.
Now assume that
is a trivial cofibration.
Then
reflects marked maps, i.e. there exists a marked map
such that
.
Thus the equivalence class of
in
is marked and mapped to
under postcomposition by
.
In the semantics of logic, one usually defines the notion of model of a logical theory in two steps:
First a notion of structure is defined that interprets the theory's signature, i.e. the function and relation symbols that occur in its axioms.
Then one defines what it means for such a structure to satisfy a formula over the signature, and a model is a structure of the theory's signature which satisfies the theory's axioms.
For very wellbehaved logics such as Lawvere theories, there is a method of freely turning structures into models of the theory, so that the category of models is a reflective subcategory of the category of structures.
By analogy, lccmarked categories correspond to the structures of the signature of lcc categories.
The model structure of
ensures that markings respect the homotopy theory of
, in that the choice of marking is only relevant up to isomorphism of diagrams.
However, the model structure does not encode the universal property that marked diagrams are ultimately supposed to satisfy.
To obtain the analogue of the category of models for a logical theory, we now define a reflective subcategory of
.
The technical tool to accomplish this is a left Bousfield localization at a set
of morphisms in
.
corresponds to the set of axioms of a logical theory.
We thus need to define
in such a way that an lccmarked category is lcc if and only if it has the right lifting property against the morphisms in
such that lifts are determined uniquely up to unique isomorphism.
is a combinatorial and left proper model
category with mapping groupoids
given by sets of functors and their natural isomorphisms.
Thus
has the structure of a combinatorial and left proper model
category by Lemma
5.
It follows that the left Bousfield localization at any (small) set of maps exists by [
12, Theorem 4.1.1].
Definition 6.
The model category
of
lcc sketches is the left Bousfield localization of the model category of
marked categories at the following morphisms.

The morphism
given by the unique map from the empty category to the marked category with a single,
marked object.
corresponds to the essentially unique existence of a terminal object.

The morphism
given by the inclusion of the category with two objects
such that
is
marked into
corresponds to the universal property of terminal objects.

The morphism
given by the quotient map from the freestanding noncommutative and
marked square
to the commuting square
(which is still marked via
).
corresponds to the commutativity of pullback squares.

The morphism
given by the inclusion of the cospan
with no markings into the noncommutative square
which is marked via
.
corresponds to the essentially unique existence of pullback squares.

The morphism
given by the inclusion of
in which the lower right square is noncommutative and marked via
, into the diagram
in which the indicated triangles commute.
corresponds to the universal property of pullback squares.

The morphism
given by the quotient map of the noncommutative diagram
in which the square made of the
and
is marked via
and the whole diagrams is marked via
, to
in which the indicated triangle commutes.
corresponds to the requirement that the evaluation map
of the dependent product
is a morphism in the slice category over
.

The morphism
given by the inclusion of a composable pair of morphisms
into the noncommutative diagram
which is marked via
(and hence the outer square is marked via
).
corresponds to the essentially unique existence of dependent products
and their evaluation maps
.

The morphism
given by the inclusion of the diagram
in which the square given by the
and
is marked via
, the subdiagram given by the
and
is marked via
, the square given by
and the
is marked via
, and
, into the diagram
in which
commutes with the
and
, and
.
corresponds to the universal property of the dependent product
.
Proposition 7.
The model category
is a model for the
category of lcc categories and lcc functors:

An object
is fibrant if and only if its underlying category is lcc and

a map
is marked if and only if its image is a terminal object;

a map
is marked if and only if its image is a pullback square; and

a map
is marked if and only if its image is (isomorphic to) the diagram of the evaluation map of a dependent product.

The homotopy category of
is equivalent to the category of lcc categories and isomorphism classes of lcc functors.

The homotopy function complexes of fibrant lcc sketches are given by the groupoids of lcc functors and their natural isomorphisms.
Proof.
Homotopy function complexes of maps from cofibrant to fibrant objects in a model
category can be computed as nerves of the groupoid enrichment.
Thus
2 and
3 follow from
1 and Lemma
5.
By [
12, Theorem 4.1.1], the fibrant objects of the left Bousfield localization
at the set
of morphisms from Definition
6 are precisely the fibrant lccmarked categories
which are
local for all
.
The verification of the equivalence asserted in
1 can thus be split up into three parts corresponding to terminal objects, pullback squares and dependent products.
As the three proofs are very similar, we give only the proof for pullbacks.
For this we must show that if
is a
marked category, then marked maps
are stable under isomorphisms and
is
local for
if and only if the underlying category
has all pullbacks and maps
are marked if and only if their images are pullbacks.
Let
be a model
category.
The homotopy function complexes of maps from cofibrant to fibrant objects in
can be computed as nerves of mapping groupoids.
The nerve functor
preserves and reflects trivial fibrations.
Thus if
is a morphism of cofibrant objects
, then a fibrant object
is
local if and only if
is a trivial fibration of groupoids, i.e. an equivalence that is surjective on objects.
Unfolding this we obtain the following characterization of
locality for a fibrant
marked category:

is
local if and only if all
marked squares commute.

is
local if and only if every cospan can be completed to a
marked square, and isomorphisms of cospans can be lifted uniquely to isomorphisms of
marked squares completing them.

is
local if and only if every commutative square completing the lower cospan of a
marked square factors via the
marked square, and every factorization is compatible with natural isomorphisms of diagrams.
By compatibility with the identity isomorphism, the factorization is unique.
If these conditions are satisfied, then every cospan in
can be completed to a pullback square which is
marked, and
marked squares are pullbacks.
By fibrancy of
, it follows that precisely the pullback squares are
marked.
Conversely, if we take as
marked squares the pullbacks in a category
with all pullbacks, then
marked squares will be stable under isomorphism, and, by the characterization above,
will be
local for all
.
3 Strict lcc categories
A naive interpretation of type theory in the fibrant objects of
as outlined in the introduction suffers from very similar issues as Seely's original version:
Type theoretic structure is preserved up to equality by substitution, but lcc functors preserve the corresponding objects with universal properties only up to isomorphism.
In this section, we explore an alternative model categorical presentation of the higher category of lcc categories.
Our goal is to rectify the deficiency that lcc functors do not preserve lcc structure up to equality.
Indeed, lcc structure on fibrant lcc sketches is induced by a right lifting property, so there is no preferred choice of lcc structure on fibrant lcc sketches.
We can thus not even state the required preservation up to equality.
To be able to speak of distinguished choice of lcc structure, we employ the following technical device.
Definition 8 ([18]).
Let
be a combinatorial model category and let
be a set of trivial cofibrations such that objects with the right lifting property against
are fibrant.
An
algebraically fibrant object of
(with respect to
) consists of an object
equipped with a choice of lifts against all morphisms
.
Thus
comes with maps
for all
in
and
in
such that
commutes.
A morphism of algebraically fibrant objects
is a morphism
in
that preserves the choices of lifts, in the sense that
for all
in
and
.
The category of algebraically fibrant objects is denoted by
, and the evident forgetful functor
by
.
Proposition 9.
Denote by
the freestanding isomorphism with objects
and
and let
.
Let
be the lccmarked object given by
with
the only marking for
and
,
the markings for
, and denote by
the obvious inclusion.
Then
is a trivial cofibration in
, and an object of
is fibrant if and only if it has the right lifting property against
for all
.
Proof.
The maps
are injective on objects and hence cofibrations, and they reflect markings up to isomorphism, hence are also weak equivalences.
A map
corresponds to an isomorphism of maps
with
marked, and
can be lifted to
if and only if
is also marked.
Thus
has the right lifting property against the
if and only if its markings are stable under isomorphism, which is the case if and only if
is fibrant.
Proposition 10.
An object of
is fibrant if and only if it has the right lifting property against all of the following morphisms, all of which are trivial cofibrations in
:

The maps
of Proposition
9.

The morphisms of Definition
6.

The maps
, where
is one of
or
.
Proof.
All three types of maps are injective on objects and hence cofibrations in
and
.
By Proposition
9, the maps
are trivial cofibrations of lccmarked categories and hence also trivial cofibrations in
.
By Proposition
7, the fibrant objects of
are precisely the lcc categories.
If
is an lcc category and
is a morphism of type
2 or
3, then
is an equivalence of groupoids and hence induces a bijection of isomorphism classes.
It follows by the Yoneda lemma that
is an isomorphism in
, so
is a weak equivalence in
.
On the other hand, let
be a fibrant lccmarked category with the right lifting property against morphisms of type
2 and the morphisms of type
3.
The right lifting property against
and
implies that
marked diagrams commute, that every cospan can be completed to a
marked square, and that every square over a cospan factors via every
marked square over the cospan.
Uniqueness of factorizations follows from the right lifting property against the map of type
3 corresponding to pullbacks.
Thus
has pullbacks, and the argument for terminal objects and dependent products is similar.
Definition 11.
A
strict lcc category is an algebraically fibrant object of
with respect to the set
consisting of the morphisms of types
1 
3 of Proposition
10.
The category of strict lcc categories is denoted by
.
Remark 12.
The objects in the image of the forgetful functor
are the fibrant lcc sketches, i.e. lcc categories.
To endow an lcc category with the structure of a strict lcc category, we need to choose canonical lifts
against the morphisms
.
Because the lifts against all other morphisms are uniquely determined, only the choices for
and
are relevant for this.
Thus a strict lcc category is an lcc category with assigned terminal object, pullback squares and dependent products (including the evaluation maps of dependent products).
A strict lcc functor is then an lcc functor that preserves these canonical choices of universal objects not just up to isomorphism but up to equality.
The slice category
over an object
of an lcc category
is lcc again.
A morphism
in
induces by pullback an lcc functor
, and there exist functors
and adjunctions
.
These data depend on choices of pullback squares and dependent products, and hence they are preserved by lcc functors only up to isomorphism.
For strict lcc categories
, however, these functors can be constructed using canonical lcc structure, i.e. using the lifts
for various
, and this choice is preserved by strict lcc functors.
Proposition 13.
Let
be a strict lcc category, and let
.
Then there is a strict lcc category
whose underlying category is the slice
.
If
is a morphism in
, then there is a canonical choice of pullback functor
which is lcc (but not necessarily strict) and canonical left and right adjoints
These data are natural in
.
Thus if
is strict lcc, then the evident functor
is strict lcc, and the following squares in
respectively
commute:
(Here application of
and
has been omitted; the left square is valued in
, and the two right squares are valued in
.)
and
commute with taking transposes along the involved adjunctions.
Proof.
We take as canonical terminal object of
the identity morphism
on
.
Canonical pullbacks in
are computed as canonical pullbacks of the underlying diagram in
, and similarly for dependent products.
The canonical pullback and dependent product functors
are defined using canonical pullbacks and dependent products, and dependent sum functors
are computed by composition with
.
Units and counits of the adjunctions are given by the evaluation maps of canonical dependent products and the projections of canonical pullbacks.
Because these data are defined in terms of canonical lcc structure on
, they are preserved by strict lcc functors.
The context morphisms in our categories with families (cwfs) [
11] will usually be defined as functors of categories in the opposite directions.
Cwfs are categories equipped with contravariant functors to
, the category of families of sets.
To avoid having to dualize twice, we thus introduce the following notion.
Definition 14.
A
covariant cwf is a category
equipped with a (covariant) functor
.
The intuition for a context morphism
in a cwf is an assignment of terms in
to the variables occurring in
.
Dually, a morphism
in a covariant cwf should thus be thought of as a mapping of the variables in
to terms in context
, or more conceptually as an interpretation of the mathematics internal to
into the mathematics internal to
.
Apart from our use of covariant cwfs, we adhere to standard terminology with the obvious dualization.
For example, an empty context in a covariant cwf is an initial (instead of terminal) object in the underlying category.
To distinguish type and term formers in (covariant) cwfs from the corresponding categorical structure, the type theoretic notions are typeset in bold where confusion is possible.
Thus
denotes a dependent product type whereas
denotes application of a dependent product functor
to an object
.
Definition 15.
The covariant cwf structure on
is given by
and
, where
denotes the canonical terminal object of
.
Proposition 16.
The covariant cwf
has an empty context and context extensions, and it supports finite product and extensional equality types.
Proof.
It follows from Theorem
18 below that
is cocomplete and that
has a left adjoint
.
In particular, there exists an initial strict lcc category, i.e. an empty context in
.
Let
.
The context extension
is constructed as pushout
where
denotes a minimally marked lcc sketch with two objects and
is the minimally marked freestanding arrow.
The vertical morphism on the left is induced by mapping
to
(the canonical terminal object of
) and
to
, and the top morphism is the evident inclusion.
The variable
is given by the image of
in
.
Unit types
are given by the canonical terminal objects of strict lcc categories
.
Binary product types
are given by canonical pullbacks
over the canonical terminal object
in
.
Finally, equality types
are constructed as canonical pullbacks
in
, i.e. as equalizers of
and
.
Because these type constructors (and evident term formers) are defined from canonical lcc structure, they are stable under substitution.
Remark 17.
Unfortunately,
does not support dependent product or dependent sum types in a similarly obvious way.
The introduction rule for dependent types is
To interpret it, we would like to apply the dependent product functor
to
.
We thus need a functor
to obtain an object of the slice category, and the construction of such a functor appears to be not generally possible.
Note that the most natural strategy for constructing this functor using the universal property of
does not work:
For this we would note that the pullback functor
is lcc, and that the diagonal
is a morphism
in
, and then try to obtain
.
The flaw in this argument is that
, while lcc, is not strict, and the universal property of
only applies to strict lcc functors.
A solution to this problem is presented in Section
4.
We conclude the section with a justification for why we have not gone astray so far:
The initial claim was that our interpretation of type theory would be valued in the category of lcc categories, but
is neither 1categorically nor bicategorically equivalent to the category
of fibrant lcc sketches.
Indeed, not every nonstrict lcc functor of strict lcc categories is isomorphic to a strict lcc functor.
Nevertheless,
has model category structure that presents the same higher category of lcc categories by the following theorem:
Theorem 18 ([18] Proposition 2.4, [6] Theorem 19).
Let
be a combinatorial model category, and let
be a set of trivial cofibrations such that objects with the right lifting property against
are fibrant.
Then
is monadic with left adjoint
, and
is a locally presentable category.
The model structure of
can be transferred along the adjunction
to
, endowing
with the structure of a combinatorial model category.
is a Quillen equivalence, and the unit
is a trivial cofibration for all
.
Theorem
18 appears in [
18] with the additional assumption that all cofibrations in
are monomorphisms.
This assumption is lifted in [
6], but there
is a set of generating trivial cofibrations, which is a slightly stronger condition than the one stated in the theorem.
However, the proof in [
6] works without change in the more general setting.
That the model structure of
is obtained by transfer from that of
means that
reflects fibrations and weak equivalences.
Lemma 19.
Let
and
be as in Theorem
18, and suppose furthermore that
is a model
category.
Then
has the structure of a model
category, and the adjunction
lifts to a Quillen
adjunction.
Proof.
Let
and
be algebraically fibrant objects.
We define the mapping groupoid
to be the full subgroupoid of
whose objects are the maps of algebraically fibrant objects
.
Because
is generated under colimits by the freestanding isomorphism
, it will follow from the existence of powers
that
is complete as a
category.
As we will later show that
is a right adjoint, the powers in
must be constructed such that they commute with
, i.e.
.
Let
be in
and let
.
The canonical lift
is constructed as follows:
corresponds to a map
, i.e. an isomorpism of maps
.
Its source and target are morphisms
, for which we obtain canonical lifts
using the canonical lifts of
.
Because
is fibrant and
is a trivial cofibration, the map
is a trivial fibration and in particular an equivalence.
It follows that
can be lifted uniquely to an isomorphism of
with
, and we take
as this isomorphism's transpose.
From uniqueness of the lift defining
, it follows that a map
preserves canonical lifts if and only if the two maps
given by evaluation at the endpoints
of the isomorphism
preserve canonical lifts.
Thus the canonical isomorphism
restricts to an isomorphism
It follows by [
1, theorem 4.85] and the preservation of powers by
that the 1categorical adjunction
is groupoid enriched.
It is proved in [
18] that
, when considered as a functor of ordinary categories, is monadic using Beck's monadicity theorem.
The only additional assumption for the enriched version of Beck's theorem [
10, theorem II.2.1] we have to check is that the coequalizer of a
split pair of morphisms as constructed in [
18] is a colimit also in the enriched sense.
This follows immediately from the fact that
is locally full and faithful.
is
monadic and accessible, so
is
cocomplete by [
5, theorem 3.8].
It remains to show that
is groupoid enriched also in the model categorical sense.
For this it suffices to note that
preserves (weighted) limits and that
preserves and reflects fibrations and weak equivalences, so that the map
induced by a cofibration of groupoids
and a fibration
in
is a fibration and a weak equivalence if either
or
is a weak equivalence.
Remark 20.
[
14] defines model category structure on
, the category of strict algebras and their strict morphisms for a 2monad
on a model
category.
If we choose for
the monad on
assigning to every category the free lcc category generated by it, then
is
equivalent to
, so it is natural ask whether their model category structures agree.
The model category structure on
is defined by transfer from
, i.e. such that the forgetful functor
reflects fibrations and weak equivalences.
The same is true for
, and this functor is valued in the fibrant objects of
.
The restriction of the functor
to fibrant objects reflects weak equivalences and trivial fibrations because equivalences of categories preserve and reflect universal objects that exist in domain and codomain.
Thus
and
have the same sets of weak equivalences and trivial fibrations, hence their model category structures coincide.
4 Algebraically cofibrant strict lcc categories
As noted in Remark
17, to interpret dependent sum and dependent product types in
, we would need to relate context extensions
to slice categories
.
In this section we discuss how this problem can be circumvented by considering yet another Quillen equivalent model category: The category of algebraically
cofibrant strict lcc categories.
The slice category
of an lcc category
is bifreely generated by (any choice of) the pullback functor
and the diagonal
, viewed as a morphism
in
:
Given a pair of lcc functor
and morphism
in
, there is an lcc functor
that commutes with
and
up to a natural isomorphism under which
corresponds to
, and every other lcc functor with this property is uniquely isomorphic to
.
Phrased in terms of model category theory, this biuniversal property amounts to asserting that the square
is a homotopy pushout square in
.
Here
denotes the discrete category with two objects and no markings, from which
is obtained by adjoining a single morphism
.
The left vertical map
maps
to some terminal object and
to
, and the right vertical map maps
to the diagonal
in
.
Recall from Proposition
16 that a context extension
in
is defined by the 1categorical pushout square
(3)
(3)
Because
is a Quillen equivalence, we should thus expect to find weak equivalences relating
to
if the pushout
(3) is also a
homotopy pushout.
By [
16, Proposition A.2.4.4], this is the case if
,
and
are cofibrant, and the map
is a cofibration.
The cofibrations of
are the maps which are injective on objects.
It follows that
and
are cofibrant lcc sketches, and that the inclusion of the former into the latter is a cofibration.
is a left Quillen functor and hence preserves cofibrations.
Thus the pushout
(3) is a homotopy pushout if
is cofibrant.
Note that components of the counit
are cofibrant replacements:
Every lcc sketch is cofibrant in
, every strict lcc category is fibrant in
, and
is a Quillen equivalence.
It follows that a strict lcc category
is cofibrant if and only if the counit
is a retraction, say with section
.
And indeed, this section can be used to strictify the pullback functor.
We have
, which induces a strict lcc functor
.
Now let
which is naturally isomorphic to
.
Adjusting the domain and codomain of the diagonal
suitably to match
, we thus obtain the desired comparison functor
.
At first we might thus attempt to restrict the category of contexts to the cofibrant strict lcc categories
, for which sections
exist.
Indeed, cofibrant objects are stable under pushouts along cofibrations, so the context extension
will be cofibrant again if
is cofibrant.
The dependent product type
would be defined by application of
to
.
Unfortunately, the definition of the comparison functor
required a
choice of section
, and this choice will not generally be compatible with strict lcc functors
.
The dependent products defined as above will thus not be stable under substitution.
To solve this issue, we make the section
part of the structure.
Similarly to how strict lcc categories have associated structure corresponding to their fibrancy in lcc, we make the section
witnessing the cofibrancy of strict lcc categories part of the data, and require morphisms to preserve it.
We thus consider algebraically cofibrant objects, which, dually to algebraically fibrant objects, are defined as coalgebras for a cofibrant replacement comonad.
As in the case of algebraically fibrant objects, we are justified in doing so because we obtain an equivalent model category:
Theorem 21 ([7] Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3, Theorems 1.4 and 2.5).
Let
be a combinatorial and model
category.
Then there are arbitrarily large cardinals
such that

is locally
presentable;

is cofibrantly generated with a set of generating cofibrations for which domains and codomains are
presentable objects;

an object
is
presentable if and only if the functor
, given by the groupoid enrichment of
, preserves
filtered colimits.
Let
be any such cardinal.
Then there is a cofibrant replacement
comonad
that preserves
filtered colimits.
Let
be any such comonad and denote its category of coalgebras by
.
Then the forgetful functor
has a left adjoint
.
is a complete and cocomplete
category, and
is a
adjunction.
The model category structure of
can be transferred along
, making
a model
category.
is a Quillen equivalence.
For
, the first infinite cardinal
satisfies the three conditions of Theorem
21, and
is a suitable cofibrant replacement comonad.
Definition 22.
The covariant cwf structure on
is defined as the composite
in terms of the covariant cwf structure on
.
We denote by
the unit and by
the counit of the adjunction
.
Lemma 23.
Let
be an
coalgebra.
Then there is a canonical natural isomorphism
of lcc functors which is compatible with morphisms of
coalgebras.
Proof.
It suffices to construct a natural isomorphism
of lcc endofunctors on
for every strict lcc category
, because then
for every coalgebra
.
is a trivial cofibration, so the map
(4)
(4)
is a trivial fibration of groupoids.
By one of the triangle identities of units and counits, we have
.
Thus both
and
are sent to
under the surjective equivalence
(4), and so we can lift the identity natural isomorphism on
to an isomorphism
as above.
Since the lift is unique, it is preserved under strict lcc functors in
.
Proposition 24.
The covariant cwf
has an empty context and context extensions, and the forgetful functor
preserves both.
Proof.
The model category
has an initial object, i.e. an empty context.
Its underlying strict lcc category
is the initial strict lcc category, and the structure map
is the unique strict lcc functor with this signature.
Now let
be an
coalgebra and
be a type.
We must construct coalgebra structure
on the context extension in
such that
commutes, and show that the strict lcc functor
induced by a coalgebra morphism
and a term
is a coalgebra morphism.
Let
be the variable term of the context extension of
by
.
Then
is a morphism
in
.
is a terminal object and hence uniquely isomorphic to the canonical terminal object
of
, and
is isomorphic to
via a component of
, where
is the natural isomorphism constructed in Lemma
23.
We thus obtain a term
and can define
by the universal property of
.
is compatible with
and
by construction.
Now let
be a coalgebra morphism and let
.
We need to show that
commutes.
This follows from the universal property of
:
The two maps
agree after precomposing
because by assumption
is a coalgebra morphism, and they both map
to the term
obtained from
similarly to
from
because the isomorphism
constructed in Lemma
23 is compatible with coalgebra morphisms.
For
a
category and
, we denote by
the higher coslice
category of objects under
.
Its objects are morphisms out of
, its morphisms are triangles
in
which commute up to specified isomorphism
, and its 2cells
are 2cells
in
such that
.
Definition 25.
Let
be an lcc category and
.
A
weak context extension of
by
consists of an lcc functor
and a morphism
with
a terminal object in
such that the following biuniversal property holds:
For every lcc category
, lcc functor
and morphism
in
with
terminal, the full subgroupoid of
given by pairs of lcc functor
and natural isomorphism
such that the square
in
commutes is contractible (i.e. equivalent to the terminal groupoid).
Remark 26.
Note that the definition entails that mapping groupoids of lcc functors
under
with
a weak context extension are equivalent to discrete groupoids.
Lcc functors
under
are (necessarily uniquely) isomorphic under
if and only if they correspond to the same morphism
in
.
Lemma 27.
Let
be an
coalgebra and let
be a strict lcc category.
Then the full and faithful inclusion of groupoids
(5)
(5)
admits a canonical retraction
.
There is a natural isomorphism
, exhibiting the retract
(5) as an equivalence of groupoids.
The retraction
and natural isomorphism
is
natural in
and
.
Proof.
Let
.
The transpose of
is a strict lcc functor
such that
.
We set
and
for
as in Lemma
23.
If
already arises from a strict lcc functor
, then
and hence
.
The action of the retraction
on natural isomorphisms
is defined analogously from the
enrichment of
.
Lemma 28.
Let
be an
coalgebra.
Then
and
form a weak context extension of
by
.
Proof.
Let
be an lcc functor and
be a morphism with terminal domain in
.
Let
be a strict lcc category such that
.
Then by Lemma
27 there is an isomorphism
for some strict lcc functor
.
Set
, where
is the unique morphism in
such that
commutes.
(Both vertical arrows are isomorphisms.)
Now with
we have
.
Let
and
be any other lcc functor over
such that
commutes.
We need to show that
and
are uniquely isomorphic under
.
Lemma
27 reduces this to the unique existence of an extension of the isomorphism
defined as composite
to an isomorphism
under
.
This follows from the construction of
as pushout
and its universal property on 2cells.
Lemma 29.
Let
be an object of an lcc category
, and let
be any choice of pullback functor.
Denote by
the diagonal morphism in
.
Then
and
form a weak context extension of
by
.
Proof.
Let
be an lcc category,
be an lcc functor and
be a morphism in
with
terminal.
We define the induced lcc functor
as composition
where
is given by a choice of pullback functor.
Let
.
We denote the composite
by
.
Then the two squares
are both pullbacks over the same cospan.
Here
denotes the first projection of the product defining the pullback functor
, and
is the projection's domain.
(These should not be confused with canonical products in strict lcc categories;
and
are only lcc categories.)
preserves pullbacks, so
is a product of
with
.
We obtain natural isomorphisms
relating the two pullbacks for all
.
The diagram
commutes, and in particular the left square commutes.
It follows that
is compatible with
and
.
and
are unique up to unique isomorphism because for every morphism
in
, i.e. object of
, the square
is a pullback square in
.
Lemma 30.
Let
be an
coalgebra and let
be a type.
Then
and
are equivalent objects of the coslice category
.
The equivalence
can be constructed naturally in
and
, in the sense that coalgebra morphisms in
preserving
induce natural transformations of diagrams
(6)
(6)
Proof.
It follows immediately from Lemmas
28 and
29 that
and
are equivalent under
.
However, a priori the corresponding diagrams
(6) can only be assumed to vary pseudonaturally in
and
, meaning that for example the square
(7)
(7)
induced by a coalgebra morphism
would only commute up to isomorphism.
The issue is that Definition
25 only requires that certain mapping groupoids are contractible to a point, but the choice of point is not uniquely determined.
To obtain a square
(7) that commutes up to equality, we have to explicitly construct a map
(i.e. point of the contractible mapping groupoid) and show that this choice is strictly natural.
The map
over
is determined up to unique isomorphism by compatibility with the (canonical) pullback functor
and the diagonal
.
Recall from the proof of Lemma
28 that
and
is a valid choice.
is stable under strict lcc functors, hence by Lemmas
13 and
27,
and
are natural in
coalgebra morphisms.
As in the proof of Lemma
29, the map in the other direction can be constructed as composite
where
is the canonical pullback along the variable
, and the components of the natural isomorphism
are the unique isomorphisms relating pullback squares
All data involved in the construction are natural in
by Proposition
13, hence so are
and
.
By Remark
26, the natural isomorphisms
and
over
are uniquely determined given their domain and codomain.
Their naturality in
and
thus follows from that of
and
.
Lemma 31.
Let
be an
coalgebra, let
be types in context
and let
be a term.
Let
be the morphism in
that corresponds to
under the isomorphism
induced by the equivalence of Lemma
30 and the adjunction
.
Then the square
in
commutes up to a unique natural isomorphism that is compatible with
coalgebra morphisms in
.
Proof.
maps the diagonal of
to the diagonal of
up to the canonical isomorphism
, hence Lemma
28 applies.
Theorem 32.
The cwf
is a model of dependent type theory with finite product, extensional equality, dependent product and dependent sum types.
Proof.
has an empty context and context extensions by Proposition
24.
Finite product and equality types are interpreted as in
(see Proposition
16).
Let
and
.
Denote by
the functor that is part of the equivalence established in Lemma
30.
Then
respectively
are defined by application of the functors
to
.
being an equivalence and the adjunction
establish an isomorphism
by which we define lambda abstraction
for some term
and the inverse to
(i.e. application of
to the variable
for some term
).
Now let
and
.
The pair term
of type
is defined by the diagram
Here the isomorphism
is a component of the natural isomorphism
constructed in Lemma
31, instantiated for
.
Given just
we recover
by composition with
, and then
as composition
These constructions establish an isomorphism of terms
and
with terms
, so the
and
laws hold.
The functors
and the involved adjunctions are preserved by
coalgebra morphisms (Proposition
13, Lemmas
30 and
31 ), so our type theoretic structure is stable under substitution.
5 Cwf structure on individual lcc categories
In this section we show that the covariant cwf structure on
that we established in Theorem
32 can be used as a coherence method to rectify Seely's interpretation in a given lcc category
.
Lemma 33.
Let
be an
coalgebra.
Then the following categories are equivalent:

;

the category of isomorphism classes of morphisms in the restriction of the higher coslice category
to slice categories
;

the category of isomorphism classes of morphisms in the restriction of the higher coslice category
to context extensions
;

the full subcategory of the 1categorical coslice category
given by the context extensions
.
Proof.
As noted in Remark
26, the higher categories in
2 and
3 are already locally equivalent to discrete groupoids and hence biequivalent to their categories of isomorphism classes.
The functor from
1 to
2 is given by assigning to a morphism
in
the isomorphism class of the pullback functor
.
The isomorphism class of an lcc functor
over
is uniquely determined by the morphism
which in turn corresponds to a morphism
, and then
.
The categories
2 and
3 are equivalent because they are both categories of weak context extensions (Lemmas
28 and
29).
Finally, the inclusion of
4 into
3 is an equivalence by the Lemma
27.
Note that every strict lcc functor
commuting (up to equality) with the projections
and
is compatible with the coalgebra structures of
and
.
Definition 34.
Let
be a covariant cwf and let
be a context of
.
Then the
coslice covariant cwf has as underlying category the (1categorical) coslice category under
, and its types and terms are given by the composite functor
.
Lemma 35.
Let
be a covariant cwf and let
be a context of
.
Then the coslice covariant cwf
has an initial context.
If
has context extensions, then
has context extensions, and they are preserved by
.
If
supports any of finite product, extensional equality, dependent product or dependent sum types, then so does
, and they are preserved by
Definition 36.
Let
be a covariant cwf with an empty context and context extensions.
The
core of
is a covariant cwf on the least full subcategory
that contains the empty context and is closed under context extensions, with types and terms given by
.
Lemma 37.
Let
be a covariant cwf with an empty context and context extension.
If
supports any of finite product types, extensional equality types, dependent product or dependent sums, then so does
, and they are preserved by the inclusion
.
If
supports unit and dependent sum types, then
is democratic, i.e. every context is isomorphic to a context obtained from the empty context by a single context extension [
8].
Theorem 38.
Let
be an
coalgebra.
Then the underlying category of
is equivalent to
.
In particular, every lcc category is equivalent to a cwf that has an empty context and context extensions, and that supports finite product, extensional equality, dependent sum and dependent product types.
Proof.
is a covariant cwf supporting all relevant type constructors by Lemmas
35 and
37.
It is democratic and hence equivalent to category
4 of lemma
33.
Given an arbitrary lcc category
, we set
and define coalgebra structure by
.
Then
is equivalent to both
and a cwf supporting the relevant type constructors.
6 Conclusion
We have shown that the category of lcc categories is a model of extensional dependent type theory.
Previously only individual lcc categories were considered as targets of interpretations.
As in these previous interpretations, we have had to deal with the issue of coherence:
Lcc functors (and pullback functors in particular) preserve lcc structure only up to isomorphism, whereas substitution in type theory commutes with type and term formers up to equality.
Our novel solution to the coherence problem relies on working globally, on all lcc categories at once.
In contrast to some individual lcc categories, the higher category of all lcc categories is locally presentable.
This allows the use of model category theory to construct a presentation of this higher category in terms of a 1category that admits an interpretation of type theory.
While we have only studied an interpretation of a type theory with dependent sum and dependent product, extensional equality and finite product types, it is straightforward to adapt the techniques of this paper to type theories with other type constructors.
For example, a dependent type theory with a type of natural numbers can be interpreted in the category of lcc categories with objects of natural numbers.
Alternatively, we can add finite coproduct, quotient and list types but omit dependent products, and obtain an interpretation in the category of arithmetic universes [
17,
21].
I would expect there to be a general theorem by which one can obtain a type theory and its interpretation in the category of algebras for every (higher) monad
on
(with the algebras of
perhaps subject to being finitely complete and stable under slicing).
Such a theorem, however, is beyond the scope of the present paper.
Bibliography

Basic concepts of enriched category theory. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 64, 1982.

Model category of marked objects. 2016.

Enriched model categories and presheaf categories. New York J. of Mathematics, 26:37–91, 2020.

D. W. Anderson. Fibrations and geometric realizations. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 84(5):765–788, 1978.

Robert Blackwell, Gregory Maxwell Kelly and A. John Power. Twodimensional monad theory. Journal of pure and applied algebra, 59(1):1–41, 1989.

John Bourke. Equipping weak equivalences with algebraic structure. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 2019.

Michael Ching and Emily Riehl. Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories. Homology, Homotopy and Applications, 16(2):171–184, 2014.

Pierre Clairambault and Peter Dybjer. The biequivalence of locally cartesian closed categories and MartinLöf type theories. International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, pages 91–106, 2011.

PierreLouis Curien. Substitution up to Isomorphism. Diagrammes, 23:43–66, 1990.

Eduardo J. Dubuc. Kan extensions in enriched category theory. 1970.

Peter Dybjer. Internal type theory. International Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs, pages 120–134, 1995.

Philip S. Hirschhorn. Model categories and their localizations. 2003.

Martin Hofmann. On the interpretation of type theory in locally cartesian closed categories. International Workshop on Computer Science Logic, pages 427–441, 1994.

Stephen Lack. Homotopytheoretic aspects of 2monads. Journal of Homotopy and Related Structures, 2(2):229–260, 2007.

Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine and Michael A Warren. The local universes model: an overlooked coherence construction for dependent type theories. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 16(3):1–31, 2015.

Jacob Lurie. Higher topos theory. 2009.

Maria Emilia Maietti. Joyal's arithmetic universe as listarithmetic pretopos. Theory \& Applications of Categories, 24:39–83, 2010.

Thomas Nikolaus. Algebraic models for higher categories. Indagationes Mathematicae, 21(12):52–75, 2011.

Robert A. G. Seely. Locally cartesian closed categories and type theory. Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society, 95(1):33–48, 1984.

Steven Vickers. Locales and toposes as spaces. Handbook of spatial logics, pages 429–496, 2007.

Steven Vickers. Sketches for arithmetic universes. Journal of Logic and Analysis, 2016.