Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userComparing Process Calculi Using Encodings
107
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Kirstin Peters
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with encodability criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover, it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. This paper provides a short survey on often used encodability criteria, general frameworks that try to provide a unified notion of the quality of an encoding, and methods to analyse and compare encodability criteria.
rate research
Read More
Formal reasoning about distributed algorithms (like Consensus) typically requires to analyze global states in a traditional state-based style. This is in contrast to the traditional action-based reasoning of process calculi. Nevertheless, we use domain-specific variants of the latter, as they are convenient modeling languages in which the local code of processes can be programmed explicitly, with the local state information usually managed via parameter lists of process constants. However, domain-specific process calculi are often equipped with (unlabeled) reduction semantics, building upon a rich and convenient notion of structural congruence. Unfortunately, the price for this convenience is that the analysis is cumbersome: the set of reachable states is modulo structural congruence, and the processes state information is very hard to identify. We extract from congruence classes of reachable states individual state-informative representatives that we supply with a proper formal semantics. As a result, we can now freely switch between the process calculus terms and their representatives, and we can use the stateful representatives to perform assertional reasoning on process calculus models.
Several Markovian process calculi have been proposed in the literature, which differ from each other for various aspects. With regard to the action representation, we distinguish between integrated-time Markovian process calculi, in which every action has an exponentially distributed duration associated with it, and orthogonal-time Markovian process calculi, in which action execution is separated from time passing. Similar to deterministically timed process calculi, we show that these two options are not irreconcilable by exhibiting three mappings from an integrated-time Markovian process calculus to an orthogonal-time Markovian process calculus that preserve the behavioral equivalence of process terms under different interpretations of action execution: eagerness, laziness, and maximal progress. The mappings are limited to classes of process terms of the integrated-time Markovian process calculus with restrictions on parallel composition and do not involve the full capability of the orthogonal-time Markovian process calculus of expressing nondeterministic choices, thus elucidating the only two important differences between the two calculi: their synchronization disciplines and their ways of solving choices.
A notion of probabilistic lambda-calculus usually comes with a prescribed reduction strategy, typically call-by-name or call-by-value, as the calculus is non-confluent and these strategies yield different results. This is a break with one of the main advantages of lambda-calculus: confluence, which means results are independent from the choice of strategy. We present a probabilistic lambda-calculus where the probabilistic operator is decomposed into two syntactic constructs: a generator, which represents a probabilistic event; and a consumer, which acts on the term depending on a given event. The resulting calculus, the Probabilistic Event Lambda-Calculus, is confluent, and interprets the call-by-name and call-by-value strategies through different interpretations of the probabilistic operator into our generator and consumer constructs. We present two notions of reduction, one via fine-grained local rewrite steps, and one by generation and consumption of probabilistic events. Simple types for the calculus are essentially standard, and they convey strong normalization. We demonstrate how we can encode call-by-name and call-by-value probabilistic evaluation.
Fitch-style modal deduction, in which modalities are eliminated by opening a subordinate proof, and introduced by shutting one, were investigated in the 1990s as a basis for lambda calculi. We show that such calculi have good computational properties for a variety of intuitionistic modal logics. Semantics are given in cartesian closed categories equipped with an adjunction of endofunctors, with the necessity modality interpreted by the right adjoint. Where this functor is an idempotent comonad, a coherence result on the semantics allows us to present a calculus for intuitionistic S4 that is simpler than others in the literature. We show the calculi can be extended `{a} la tense logic with the left adjoint of necessity, and are then complete for the categorical semantics.
A recent strand of research in structural proof theory aims at exploring the notion of analytic calculi (i.e. those calculi that support general and modular proof-strategies for cut elimination), and at identifying classes of logics that can be captured in terms of these calculi. In this context, Wansing introduced the notion of proper display calculi as one possible design framework for proof calculi in which the analiticity desiderata are realized in a particularly transparent way. Recently, the theory of properly displayable logics (i.e. those logics that can be equivalently presented with some proper display calculus) has been developed in connection with generalized Sahlqvist theory (aka unified correspondence). Specifically, properly displayable logics have been syntactically characterized as those axiomatized by analytic inductive axioms, which can be equivalently and algorithmically transformed into analytic structural rules so that the resulting proper display calculi enjoy a set of basic properties: soundness, completeness, conservativity, cut elimination and subformula property. In this context, the proof that the given calculus is complete w.r.t. the original logic is usually carried out syntactically, i.e. by showing that a (cut free) derivation exists of each given axiom of the logic in the basic system to which the analytic structural rules algorithmically generated from the given axiom have been added. However, so far this proof strategy for syntactic completeness has been implemented on a case-by-case base, and not in general. In this paper, we address this gap by proving syntactic completeness for properly displayable logics in any normal (distributive) lattice expansion signature. Specifically, we show that for every analytic inductive axiom a cut free derivation can be effectively generated which has a specific shape, referred to as pre-normal form.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
