Hi,
What I’m about to say is a trivial consequence of an observation that Egbert/Martin made a couple of years ago (https://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/718), so maybe other people have already realized this, but it was surprising to me.
In particular, based on Martin’s observation https://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/718#issuecomment-65378867
that any retraction of an identity type is an equivalence:
retract-of-Id-is-Id : ∀ {A : Set} {R : A → A → Set} →
(r : {x y : A} → x == y -> R x y)
(s : {x y : A} → R x y → x == y)
(comp1 : {x y : A} (c : R x y) → r (s c) == c)
→ {x y : A} → IsEquiv {x == y} {R x y} (r {x}{y})
it is enough to assert “ua” (equivalence to path) and the “beta” direction of the full univalence axiom, i.e. the fact that transporting along such a path is the equivalence:
ua : ∀ {A B} → Equiv A B → A == B
uaβ : ∀ {A B} (e : Equiv A B) → transport (\ X -> X) (ua e) == fst e
The “eta” direction comes for free by Martin’s argument.
Here is a self-contained Agda file that checks this:
https://github.com/dlicata335/hott-agda/blob/master/misc/UABetaOnly-SelfContained.agda
(Almost all of the file is boilerplate, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t accidentally using anything from my library that relies on univalence.)
Unless the absence of definitional beta reduction for J somehow gets in the way, I think this gives another arugment why the Glue type in the Cohen,Coquand,Huber,Mortberg cubical type theory gives full univalence: the only thing specifc to cubical type theory that you need to check is that ua and uaβ can be derived from Glue, and the rest of the argument can happen in book HoTT. This is a small simplification/rearrangement of the argument in Appendix B of their paper, essentially saying that condition (3) of Lemma 25 can be replaced by the retraction lemma.
-Dan