General Semantic Construction of Dependent Refinement Type Systems, Categorically

Refinement types are types equipped with predicates that specify preconditions and postconditions of underlying functional languages. We propose a general semantic construction of dependent refinement type systems from underlying type systems and predicate logic, that is, a construction of liftings of closed comprehension categories from given (underlying) closed comprehension categories and posetal fibrations for predicate logic. We give sufficient conditions to lift structures such as dependent products, dependent sums, computational effects, and recursion from the underlying type systems to refinement type systems. We demonstrate the usage of our construction by giving semantics to a refinement type system and proving soundness.


Introduction
Refinement types [6,7] are types equipped with predicates that restrict values in the types. They are used to specify preconditions and postconditions and to verify that programs satisfy the specifications. Refinement type systems are dependently typed to express postconditions of functions that depend on input. Many dependent refinement types systems are proposed [5,6,13,14,25] and implemented in, e.g., F ⋆ [23,24] and LiquidHaskell [19,26,27].
In this paper, we address the question: "How are refinement type systems, underlying type systems, and predicate logic related from the viewpoint of categorical semantics?" Although most existing refinement type systems are proved to be sound using operational semantics, we believe that categorical semantics is more suitable for the general understanding of their nature, especially when we consider general computational effects and various kinds of predicate logic (e.g., for relational verification). This understanding will provide guidelines to design new refinement type systems.
Our answer to the question is a general semantic construction of refinement type systems from underlying type systems and predicate logic. More concretely, given a closed comprehension category (CCompC for short) for interpreting an underlying type system and a fibration for predicate logic, we combine them to obtain another CCompC that can interpret a refinement type system built from the underlying type system and the predicate logic.
For example, consider giving an interpretation to the term "x : {int | x ≥ 0} ⊢ x+1 : {v : int | v = x+1}" in a refinement type system. Its underlying term is "x : int ⊢ x + 1 : int," and we assume that it is interpreted as the successor function of Z in Set. The problem here is how to refine this interpretation with predicates. In dependent refinement types, predicates may depend on the variables in contexts. In this example, the type "x : {int | x ≥ 0} ⊢ {v : int | v = x + 1}" depends on the variable x. Thus, the interpretation of such types must be a predicate on the context and the type, i.e., As a result, the term in the refinement type system is interpreted as the interpretation in the underlying type system together with the property that if input satisfies preconditions, then output satisfies postconditions.
(1) We formalize this refinement process as a construction of liftings of CCompCs, which are used to interpret dependent type theories. Assume that we have a pair of a CCompC p : E → B for interpreting underlying type systems and a fibration q : P → B for predicate logic satisfying certain conditions. Then we construct a CCompC {E | P} → P for interpreting dependent refinement type systems. This construction also yields a morphism of CCompCs from {E | P} → P to p : E → B in Fig. 1. Given the simple fibration s(Set) → Set for underlying type systems and the subobject fibration Sub(Set) → Set for predicate logic, then we get interpretations like (1).
We extend the construction of liftings of CCompCs to liftings of fibred monads on CCompCs, which is motivated by the fact that many dependent refinement type systems have computational effects, e.g., exception (like division and assertion), divergence, nondeterminism [25], and probability [5]. Assume that we have a fibred monadT on p : E → B, a monad T on B, and a liftingṪ of T along q : P → B. Under a certain condition that roughly claims thatT and T represent the same computational effects, we construct a fibred monad on {E | P} → P, which is a lifting ofT in the same spirit of the given liftingṪ . This situation is rather realistic because the fibred monadT on the CCompC p : E → B is often induced from the monad T on the base category B. The liftingṪ of the monad T along p : P → B specifies how to map predicates P ∈ P X on values X ∈ B to predicatesṪ P ∈ P T X on computations T X, which enables us to express, for example, total/partial correctness and may/must nondeterminism [1].
We explain the usage of these categorical constructions by giving semantics to a dependent refinement type system with computational effects, which is based on [4]. Our system also supports subtyping relations induced by logical implication. We prove soundness of the refinement type system.
Finally, we discuss how to handle recursion in refinement type systems. In [4], Ahman gives semantics to recursion in a specific model, i.e., the fibration of continuous families of ω-cpos CFam(CPO) → CPO. We consider more general characterization of recursion by adapting Conway operators for CCompCs, which enables us to lift the structure for recursion. We show that a rule for partial correctness in our refinement type system is sound under the existence of a generalized Conway operator.
Our contributions are summarized as follows.
-We provide a general construction of liftings of CCompCs from given CCom-pCs and posetal fibrations satisfying certain conditions, as a semantic counterpart of construction of dependent refinement type systems from underlying type systems and predicate logic. We extend this to liftings of fibred monads on the underlying CCompCs to model computational effects. -We consider a type system (based on EMLTT [2][3][4]) that includes most of basic features of dependent refinement type systems and prove its soundness in the liftings of CCompCs obtained from the above construction. -We define Conway operators for dependent type systems. This generalizes the treatment of general recursion in [4]. We prove soundness of the typing rule for partial correctness of recursion under the existence of a lifting of Conway operators.

Preliminaries
We review basic definitions and fix notations for comprehension categories, which are used as categorical models for dependent type theories. We assume basic knowledge of fibrations (see e.g. [10]). Let p : E → B be a fibration (opfibration). We denote the cartesian (cocartesian) lifting over u : is the reindexing (coreindexing) functor. We call p : E → B a posetal fibration if p is a fibration such that each fibre category is a poset. Note that the fibration p : E → B is split and faithful if p is posetal.
A comprehension category is a functor P : E → B → such that the composite cod • P : E → B is a fibration and P maps cartesian morphisms to pullbacks in B. A comprehension category P is full if P is fully faithful.
A comprehension category with unit is a fibration p : E → B that has a fibred terminal object 1 : B → E and a comprehension functor {−} : E → B which is a right adjoint of the fibred terminal object functor 1 ⊣ {−}. Projection π X : {X} → pX is defined by π X = pǫ 1⊣{−} X for each X ∈ E. Intuitively, E represents a collection of types Γ ⊢ A in dependent type theories; B represents a collection of contexts Γ ; p : The comprehension category with unit p : E → B induces several structures. It induces a comprehension category P defined by PX = π X . The adjunction 1 ⊣ {−} defines the bijection s : E I (1I, X) ∼ = {f : I → {X} | π X • f = id I } between vertical morphisms in E and sections in B. For each X, Y ∈ E I , we have . Consider the pullback square P(π X (Y )) where X, Y ∈ E I . By the universal property of pullbacks, we have the Let p : E → B be a comprehension category with unit and q : D → B be a fibration. The fibration q has p-products if π * X : D pX → D {X} has a right adjoint π * X ⊣ X for each X ∈ E and these adjunctions satisfy the BC (Beck-Chevalley) condition for each pullback square Pf where P is a comprehension category induced by p and f is a cartesian morphism in E. Similarly, we define p-coproducts by X ⊣ π * X and p-equality by Eq X ⊣ δ * X plus the BC condition for each cartesian morphism (see [10,Definition 9.3.5] for detail).
A comprehension category with unit p : E → B admits products (coproducts) if it has p-products (p-coproducts). The coproducts are strong if the canonical morphism κ : is a full comprehension category with unit that admits products and strong coproducts and has a terminal object in the base category. A split closed comprehension category (SCCompC) is a CCompC such that p is a split fibration, and the BC condition for products and coproducts holds strictly (i.e., canonical isomorphisms are identities). For example, the simple fibration s B : s(B) → B on a cartesian closed category B is a SCCompC (see [10,Theorem 10.5.5]). Another example of SCCompCs is the family fibration fam Set : Fam(Set) → Set.

Lifting SCCompCs and Fibred Coproducts
In this section, we give a construction of liftings of SCCompCs with strong fibred coproducts from given SCCompCs with strong fibred coproducts for underlying types and posetal fibrations for predicate logic satisfying appropriate conditions.

Lifting SCCompCs
Let p : E → B be a SCCompC for underlying type systems. Let q : P → B be a posetal fibration with fibred finite products for predicate logic. Definition 1. We define a category {E | B} by the pullback of q → : P → → B → along P : E → B → where the comprehension category P is induced by p : E → B.
The intuition of this definition is as follows. For each object (X, P, Q) ∈ {E | P}, X represents a type Γ ⊢ A in the underlying type system, P represents a predicate on the context Γ , and Q represents the conjunction of a predicate on Γ, v : A and the predicate P (thus Q ≤ π * X P is imposed). Note that Let {p | q} : {E | P} → P be a functor defined by cod • (q → ) * P, that is, (X, P, Q) → P . The functor {p | q} inherits (most of) the CCompC structure of p : E → B.
Lemma 2. The functor {p | q} : {E | P} → P is a split fibration. The cartesian lifting of g : P ′ → P is given by where π ′ is a projection for fibred products.
The rest of the proof is omitted.

⊓ ⊔
The existence of products in {p | q} requires additional conditions. Lemma 4. If q : P → B has fibred exponentials and p-products (in addition to fibred finite products), then {p | q} : {E | P} → P admits products.
Proof. We define (X,P,Q) : Then, this gives products in {p | q} but we omit the lengthy proof.
⊓ ⊔ As a result, we get a lifting of SCCompCs over p : E → B.
, a split fibred functor that preserves the CCompC structure strictly.
Proof. By Lemma 3 and Lemma 4. A terminal object in P exists because B has a terminal object and q : P → B has fibred terminal objects. It is almost obvious that (P * (q → ), q) preserves the structure of CCompCs. ((I,X),P,Q) Example 7. Let erel : ERel → Set be the fibration of endorelations defined by change-of-base from Sub(Set) → Set along the functor X → X × X. The fibration erel is a fibred ccc and has products (i.e. right adjoints of reindexing functors that satisfy the BC condition for each pullback square). Therefore, erel has p-products for any comprehension category with unit p. If we apply Theorem 5 to erel and the simple fibration s Set : s(Set) → Set, then products are defined similarly to Example 6. where (I, X) ∈ Fam(Set), P ⊆ I, and Q ⊆ i∈P Xi ⊆ i∈I Xi. Note that subsets Q ⊆ i∈I Xi have a one-to-one correspondence with families of subsets (Qi ⊆ Xi) i∈I when we define Qi = ι * i (Q) where ι i : Xi → i∈I Xi is the i-th injection. So, we often identify Q with the family of subsets is defined by modifying (2) for dependent functions.

Lifting Fibred Comproducts
A sufficient condition for {p | q} : {E | P} → P to have strong fibred coproducts is given by the following lemma, which is analogous to [9, Prop. 4.5.8].
Lemma 9. If (1) p : E → B is a CCompC that has strong fibred coproducts (2) for each X, Y ∈ E I , X ′ , Y ′ ∈ E I ′ , u : I → I ′ , and pair of cartesian liftings f : X → X ′ and g : Y → Y ′ over u, the following two squares are pullbacks Proof. We define fibred coproducts by (X, P, Q)+(Y, P, R) = (X +Y, P, We omit the rest of the proof.

⊓ ⊔
Note that if q is fibred bicartesian closed, then q is a fibred distributive category. ((I, X), P, Q)

Lifting Monads on SCCompCs
Suppose we have a SCCompC p : E → B and a posetal fibration q : P → B as ingredients for {p | q} : {E | P} → P in Theorem 5. We explain how to construct a fibred monad on {p | q} : {E | P} → P from monads on p and q. First, we assume that a monad T on B and a fibred monadT on p : E → B are given. These monads are intended to represent the same computational effects in underlying type systems, but T is more primitive thanT (like the maybe monad and the powerset monad on Set), andT is induced from T in some natural way (e.g. we can defineT by (I, X) → (I, T X) on the simple fibration s(Set) → Set). In such a situation, we often have an oplax monad morphism (Definition 11) θ : {T (−)} → T {−}. Intuitively, θ extends the action ofT on types to contexts, just like strengths of strong monads. We also need a liftingṪ of T along q : P → B to specify a mapping from predicates on values in X ∈ B to predicates on computations in T X [1]. Given all these ingredients and some additional conditions, we define a fibred monad on {p | q} : {E | P} → P, which is a lifting of the fibred monadT on p : E → B.
Definition 11 (oplax monad morphism). Let C, D be categories, F : C → D be a functor, and (S, η S , µ S ), (T, η T , µ T ) be monads on C and D, respectively. A natural transformation θ : F S → T F is an oplax monad morphism if θ respects units and multiplications.
holds for each X ∈ E, P ∈ P pX and Q ∈ P {X} , then there exists a fibred monad S on {p | q} : {E | P} → P such that the fibred functor {p | q} → p in Theorem 5 is a fibred monad morphism from S toT .
Proof. We define S(X, P, Q) = (T X, P, π * T X P ∧ θ * Ṫ Q). Then the monad structure ofT lifts to S. The assumption (3) is required to prove that S is fibred. We have an oplax monad morphism θ : i∈I T Xi → T i∈I Xi defined by the cotupling [(T ι i ) i∈I ] : i∈I T Xi → T i∈I Xi where ι i : Xi → i∈I Xi is the i-th injection. The condition (3) holds for any fibred lifting of T along the subobject fibration Sub(Set) → Set. Moreover, we have ι * i θ * Ṫ Q =Ṫ ι * i Q for each Q ∈ Sub(Set) i∈I Xi , so the monad in Theorem 12 is given by We consider a concrete refinement type system with computational effects and define sound semantics to show that the SCCompC defined in Theorem 5 has sufficient structures for dependent refinement types. Here, we consider two type systems. One is an underlying type system that is a fragment of EMLTT [2][3][4].
The other is a refinement of the underlying type system that has refinement types {v : A | p} and a subtyping relation Γ ⊢ A <: B induced by logical implication. The two type systems share a common syntax for terms while types are more expressive in the refinement type system. We consider liftings of fibred adjunction models to interpret the refinement type system. Here, Theorem 12 can be used to obtain a lifting of fibred adjunction models via Eilenberg-Moore construction. We prove a soundness theorem that claims if a term is well-typed in the refinement type system, then the interpretation of the term has a lifting along the morphism of CCompCs defined in Theorem 5.

Underlying Type System
We define the underlying dependent type system by a slightly modified version of a fragment of EMLTT [2][3][4]. We remove some of the types and terms from the original for simplicity. We parameterize our type system with a set of base type constructors (ranged over by b) and a set of value constants (ranged over by c) for convenience.
We implicitly assume that variables in Γ are mutually different. We use many type annotations in the syntax of terms for a technical reason, but we might omit them if they are clear from the context. We define substitution We have several kinds of judgements: well-formed contexts ⊢ Γ ; well-formed (value or computation) types Γ ⊢ A, Γ ⊢ C; well-typed (value or computation) terms Γ ⊢ V : A, Γ ⊢ M : C; and definitional equalities for contexts, types and Typing rules are basically the same as EMLTT. Rules for base type constructors and value constants are shown in Fig. 2 Fig. 2. Some typing rules for the underlying type system.

Semantics.
We use fibred adjunction models to interpret terms and types. We adapt the definition for our fragment of EMLTT as follows.
Definition 15 (Fibred adjunction models). A fibred adjunction model is a fibred adjunction F ⊣ U : r → p where p : V → B is a SCCompC with strong fibred coproducts and r : C → B is a fibration with p-products.
The Eilenberg-Moore fibration of a CCompC p : E → B inherits products in p [2, Theorem 4.3.24] and thus gives an example of fibred adjunction models.
Lemma 16. Given a SCCompC p : E → B with strong fibred products and a split fibred monad T on p, then the Eilenberg-Moore adjunction of T is a fibred adjunction model.

⊓ ⊔
We assume that a fibred adjunction model F ⊣ U : r → p between p : E → B and r : C → B is given and that interpretations of base type constructors b ∈ E and value constants c ∈ E 1 (1, X) (for some X ∈ E 1 ) are given. We define a partial interpretation − of the following form for raw syntax.
Most of the definition of − are the same as [2]. For base type constructors b and value constants c, we define − as follows.
Here, left-hand sides are defined if right-hand sides are defined.

Proposition 17 (Soundness). Assume that b ∈ E { ⋄;A } holds for each b :
A → Type such that ⋄; A is defined, and c ∈ E 1 (1, ⋄; ty(c) ) holds if ⋄; ty(c) ∈ E 1 is defined. Interpretations − of well-formed contexts and types and welltyped terms are defined. If two contexts, types, or terms are definitionally equal, then their interpretations are equal. ⊓ ⊔

Predicate Logic
We define syntax for logical formulas by where a ranges over predicate symbols. Here, we added ⊤ and V = A W for typing rule for the unique value of the unit type and variables of base types (i.e. for selfification), respectively, which we describe later. However, there is a large amount of freedom to choose the syntax of logical formulas. The least requirement here is that logical formulas can be interpreted in a posetal fibration q : P → B, and interpretations of logical formulas admit semantic weakening, substitution, and conversion in the sense of [2, Proposition 5.2.4, 5.2.6]. So, we can almost freely add or remove logical connectives and quantifiers as long as q : P → B admits them. We define a standard judgement of well-formedness for logical formulas. Some of the rules for well-formedness are shown in Fig. 3 Logical formulas are interpreted in the fibration q : P → B. We assume that interpretation a ∈ P { ⋄;A } for each predicate symbol a : A → Prop is given. The interpretation Γ ⊢ p ∈ P Γ is standard and defined inductively for each well-formed formulas. For example: where a : A → Prop is a predicate symbol.

Refinement Type System
We refine the underlying type system by adding predicates to base types and the unit type. From now on, we use subscript A u for types in the underlying type system to distinguish them from types in the refinement type system.
We use the same definition of terms as the underlying type system and the same set of base type constructors and value constants. Argument types of base type constructors b : A u → Type are also the same, but types ty(c) assigned to value constants c are redefined as refinement types. Given a type A (or C) in the refinement type system, we define its underlying type |A| (or |C|) by induction where predicates are eliminated in the base cases.
b : Au → Type Judgements in the refinement type system are as follows. We have judgements for well-formedness or well-typedness for contexts, types and terms in the refinement type system, which are denoted in the same way as the underlying type system. We do not consider definitional equalities for terms because they are the same as the underlying type system. Instead, we add judgements for subtyping between types and contexts. They are denoted by ⊢ Γ 1 <: Γ 2 for context, Γ ⊢ A <: B for value types, and Γ ⊢ C <: D for computation types.
Most of term and type formation rules are similar to the underlying type system. We listed some of the non-trivial modifications of typing rules in Fig. 4. We add typing rules for {v : b Bu (V ) | p} and {v : 1 | p}. Subtyping for these types are defined by judgements Γ ; v : A u | p ⊢ q for logical implication. Here, Γ ; v : A u | p ⊢ q means "assumptions in Γ and p implies q" where p and q are well-formed formulas in the context |Γ |, v : A u . We do not specify derivation rules for the judgement Γ ; v : A u | p ⊢ q but assume soundness of the judgement (explained later). We allow "selfification" [18] for variables of base types. Subtyping for Σx:A.B, U C, F A, and Πx:A.C are defined covariantly except the argument type A of Πx:A.C, which is contravariant. We have the rule of subsumption. Value constants are typed with a refined type assignment ty(c). The unique value * of the unit type has type {v : 1 | ⊤}.
Lemma 18. If we eliminate predicates in the refinement types from well-formed contexts, types and terms, then we get well-formed contexts, types and terms of the underlying type system.
Proof. By induction on the derivation of judgements. Each typing rule in the refinement type system has a corresponding rule in the underlying system. ⊓ ⊔ Example 19. We can express conditional branching using the elimination rule of the fibred coproduct type 1 + 1. For example, assume we have a base type constructor int : 1 → Type for integers and a value constant for comparison.
We can define if x ≤ y then M else N to be a syntax sugar for where (≤ ′ ) = force (≤). Note that M and N are typed in contexts that have v : {v : 1 | x ≤ y} or v : {v : 1 | x > y} depending on the result of comparison.

Semantics
Definition 20 (lifting of fibred adjunction models). Suppose that we have two fibred adjunction models F ⊣ U : q → p between p : V → B and q : C → B andḞ ⊣U : s → r between r : U → P and s : D → P. The fibred adjunction modelḞ ⊣U is a lifting of F ⊣ U if there exists functors u : U → V, v : D → C, and t : P → B such that these functors strictly preserve all structures ofḞ ⊣U to those of F ⊣ U . That is, (u, t) : r → p and (v, t) : s → q are split fibred functors, the pair of fibred functor (u, t) and (v, t) is a map of adjunctions in Fib, (u, t) strictly preserves the CCompC structure and fibred coproducts, and (v, t) maps r-products to p-products in the strict sense.
We assume that a lifting of fibred adjunction models is given as follows.
Here, we assume more than just a lifting of fibred adjunction models by requiring the specific SCCompC {p | q} with strong fibred coproducts, and the split functor (u, q) : {p | q} → p defined in Theorem 5 and Lemma 9. The underlying fibred adjunction model F ⊣ U is used for the underlying type system in §5.1, and q : P → B is for predicate logic in §5.2. One way to obtain such liftings of fibred adjunction models is to apply the Eilenberg-Moore construction to the monad morphism in Theorem 12, but in general we do not restrict C and D to be Eilenberg-Moore categories. We further assume that q has p-equalities to interpret logical formulas of the form V = A W . We define partial interpretation of refinement types Γ ∈ P, Γ ; A ∈ {E | P} Γ , and Γ ; C ∈ D Γ similarly to the underlying type system but with the following modification. Here, we make use of the definition of {E | P}.
-If Γ is defined, then |Γ | is defined and equal to q Γ .
-If Γ ; A is defined, then |Γ |; |A| is defined and equal to u Γ ; A .
-If Γ ; C is defined, then |Γ |; |C| is defined and equal to v Γ ; C .
Proof. By simultaneous induction. The case of {v : A u | p} is obvious, and other cases follow from the definition of liftings of fibred adjunction models. ⊓ ⊔ Before proceeding to the soundness of the refinement type system, we add another assumption that the judgement for logical implication Γ ; v : One way to achieve this is to collect predicates in Γ by This is sound because we can prove Γ ≤ |Γ | ⊢ Γ by induction on the length of Γ . For example, [27] uses similar encoding of contexts into logical formulas. -If ⊢ Γ , then Γ ∈ P is defined. If Γ ⊢ A, then Γ ; A ∈ {E | P} Γ is defined.

Toward Recursion in Refinement Type Systems
We consider how to deal with general recursion in refinement type systems.
In [4], Ahman used a specific model of the fibration CFam(CPO) → CPO of continuous families of ω-cpos to extend EMLTT with recursion. However, we need to identify the structure that characterizes recursion to lift recursion from the underlying type system to refinement type systems. So, we consider a generalization of Conway operators [22] and prove the soundness of the underlying and the refinement type system extended with typing rules for recursion. This extension enables us to reason about partial correctness of general recursion. Unfortunately, we still do not know an example of liftings of Conway operators, although (1) CFam(CPO) → CPO does have a Conway operator and (2) the soundness of the refinement type system with recursion holds under the existence of a lifting of Conway operators. We leave this problem for future work.

Conway Operators
The notion of Conway operators for cartesian categories is defined in [22]. We adapt the definition for comprehension categories with unit. We allow partially defined Conway operators because we need those defined only on interpretations of computation types.
Definition 25 (Conway operator for comprehension categories with unit). Let p : E → B be a comprehension category with unit and K ⊆ E be a collection of objects. A Conway operator for the comprehension category with unit p defined on K is a family of mappings (−) ‡ : E I (X, X) → E I (1I, X) for each X ∈ E I ∩ K such that the following conditions are satisfied.
(Naturality) For each X ∈ K, f ∈ E I (X, X), and u :

Recursion in the Underlying Type System
Syntax. We add recursion µx : U C.M to the syntax of computation terms. We also add typing rules in Fig. 5.
Semantics. Assume we have a fibred adjunction model F ⊣ U : r → p where p : E → B and r : C → B. We need a Conway operator defined on objects in However, here is a circular definition because Γ ; U C may contain terms of the form µx : U D.M , whose interpretations are defined by the Conway operator. So, we use a slightly stronger condition.

Definition 28.
A Conway operator defined on computation types is a Conway operator defined on K ⊆ E such that K satisfies the following conditions. (1) Given a Conway operator defined on computation types, we interpret µx : Proposition 29. Soundness (Proposition 17) holds for the underlying type system extended with general recursion.
Proof. By induction. We can prove that the given Conway operator is defined on { Γ ; U C | Γ ⊢ C} ⊆ E by [2, Proposition 4.1.14]. ⊓ ⊔

Recursion in Refinement Type System
Syntax. We add the typing rule for Γ ⊢ µx:U C.M : C in Fig. 5 to the refinement type system. Here, recall that we remove definitional equalities when we consider the refinement type system.

Semantics.
We consider liftings of Conway operators to interpret recursion in the refinement type system.
Definition 30. Let p : E → B and q : D → A be comprehension categories with unit, (u, v) : p → q be a morphism of comprehension categories with unit. Assume q has a Conway operator (−) ‡ defined on K ⊆ D. A lifting of the Conway operator (−) ‡ along (u, v) is a Conway operator (−) ♮ for p defined on L ⊆ E such that uL ⊆ K and u(f ♮ ) = (uf ) ‡ for each f ∈ E I (X, X) where X ∈ L.
Lemma 31. Let (u, v) be a morphism of CCompCs defined in Theorem 5. Assume p : E → B has a Conway operator (−) ‡ defined on K ⊆ E. The CCompC {E | P} → P has a lifting of the Conway operator defined on L ⊆ {E | P} if uL ⊆ K and for each (X, P, Q) ∈ L and f ∈ {E | P} P ((X, P, Q), (X, P, Q)), {f ‡ } has a lifting π * 1pX P → Q along q : P → B.

⊓ ⊔
Proof. Let (f, id P , h) : (X, P, Q) → (X, P, Q) be a morphism in {E | P} where (X, P, Q) ∈ L. We define a Conway operator by (f, id P , h) We assume that a lifting of fibred adjunction models (4) together with a lifting of Conway operators defined on computation types is given.
Theorem 32. Soundness (Theorem 22) holds for the refinement type system extended with general recursion.
⊓ ⊔ Consider the fibration CFam(CPO) → CPO for the underlying type system with recursion. To support recursion in our refinement type system, a natural choice of a fibration for predicate logic is the fibration of admissible subsets Adm(CPO) → CPO because the least fixed point of an ω-continuous function f : X → X is given by lfpf = n f n (⊥). However, we cannot apply Theorem 5 because Adm(CPO) → CPO is not a fibred ccc [9, §4.3.2]. Specifically, it is not clear whether this combination admits products. We believe that our approach is quite natural but leave giving concrete examples of liftings of Conway operators for future work.

Related Work
Dependent refinement types. Historically, there are two kinds of refinement types. One is datasort refinement types [7], which are subsets of underlying types but not necessarily dependent. The other is index refinement types [28]. A typical example of index refinement types is a type of lists indexed by natural numbers that represent the length of lists. Nowadays, the word "refinement types" includes datasort and index refinement types, and moreover, mixtures of them.
Among a wide variety of the meaning of refinement types, we focus on types equipped with predicates that may depend on other terms [6,20], which we call dependent refinement types or just refinement types. Dependent refinement types are widely studied [5,13,14,25], and implemented in, e.g., F ⋆ [23,24] and LiquidHaskell [19,26,27]. However, most studies focus on decidable type systems, and only a few consider categorical semantics.
We expect that some of the existing refinement type systems are combined with effect systems. For example, a dependent refinement type system for nondeterminism and partial/total correctness proposed in [25] contains types for computations indexed by quantifiers Q 1 Q 2 where Q 1 , Q 2 ∈ {∀, ∃}. Here, Q 1 represents may/must nondeterminism, and Q 2 represents total/partial correctness. It has been shown that Q 1 Q 2 corresponds to four cartesian liftings of the monad P + ((−) + 1) [1,12]. We conjecture that these liftings are connected by monad morphisms and hence yield a lattice-graded monad. Another example is a relational refinement type system for differential privacy [5]. Their system seems to use a graded lifting of the distribution monad where the lifting is graded by privacy parameters, as pointed out in [21]. We leave for future work combining our refinement type system with effect systems based on graded monads [8,11,15].
Categorical semantics. Our interpretation of refinement type systems is based on a morphism of CCompCs, which is a similar strategy to [16]. The difference is that our paper focuses on dependent refinement types and makes the role of predicate logic explicit by giving a semantic construction of refinement type systems from given underlying type systems and predicate logic.
Combining dependent types and computational effects is discussed in [2][3][4]. Although their aim is not at refinement types, their system is a basis for the design and semantics of our refinement type system with computational effects.
Semantics for types of the form {v : A u | p} are characterized categorically as right adjoints of terminal object functors in [10,Chapter 11]. Such types are called subset types there. They consider the situation where a given CCompC p : E → B is already rich enough to interpret {v : A u | p}, and do not aim to interpret refinement type systems by liftings of CCompCs. Moreover, we cannot directly use the interpretations in [10] for our CCompC {E | P} → P because we are not given a fibration for predicate logic whose base category is P.

Conclusion and Future Work
We provided a general construction of liftings of CCompCs from combinations of CCompCs and posetal fibrations satisfying certain conditions. This can be seen as a semantic counterpart of constructing dependent refinement type systems from underlying type systems and predicate logic. We identified sufficient conditions for several structures in underlying type systems (e.g. products, coproducts, fibred coproducts, fibred monads, and Conway operators) to lift to refinement type systems. We proved the soundness of a dependent refinement type system with computational effects with respect to interpretations in CCompCs obtained from the general construction.
We aim to extend our dependent refinement type system by combining effect systems based on graded monads [8,11,15]. We hope that this extension will give us a more expressive framework that subsumes, for example, refinement type systems in [5,25]. Another direction is to define interpretations of {v : A u | p} in the style of subset types in [10,Chapter 11]. Lastly, we are interested in finding more examples of possible combinations of underlying type systems and predicate logic (especially for recursion in refinement type systems but not limited to this) so that we can find a new practical application of this paper.