A criterion for separating process calculi

We introduce a new criterion, replacement freeness, to discern the relative expressiveness of process calculi. Intuitively, a calculus is strongly replacement free if replacing, within an enclosing context, a process that cannot perform any visible action by an arbitrary process never inhibits the capability of the resulting process to perform a visible action. We prove that there exists no compositional and interaction sensitive encoding of a not strongly replacement free calculus into any strongly replacement free one. We then define a weaker version of replacement freeness, by only considering replacement of closed processes, and prove that, if we additionally require the encoding to preserve name independence, it is not even possible to encode a non replacement free calculus into a weakly replacement free one. As a consequence of our encodability results, we get that many calculi equipped with priority are not replacement free and hence are not encodable into mainstream calculi like CCS and pi-calculus, that instead are strongly replacement free. We also prove that variants of pi-calculus with match among names, pattern matching or polyadic synchronization are only weakly replacement free, hence they are separated both from process calculi with priority and from mainstream calculi.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS'10, arXiv:1011.601

Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness

This paper proposes a definition of what it means for one system description language to encode another one, thereby enabling an ordering of system description languages with respect to expressive power. I compare the proposed definition with other definitions of encoding and expressiveness found in the literature, and illustrate it on a case study: comparing the expressive power of CCS and CSP.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2012, arXiv:1208.244

Expressiveness of Process Algebras

AbstractWe examine ways to measure expressiveness of process algebras, and recapitulate and compare some related results from the literature

Comparing Process Calculi Using Encodings

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.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2019, arXiv:1908.0821

The Attributed Pi Calculus

International audienceThe attributed pi calculus (pi(L)) forms an extension of the pi calculus with attributed processes and attribute dependent synchronization. To ensure flexibility, the calculus is parametrized with the language L which defines possible values of attributes. pi(L) can express polyadic synchronization as in pi@ and thus diverse compartment organizations. A non-deterministic and a stochastic semantics, where rates may depend on attribute values, is introduced. The stochastic semantics is based on continuous time Markov chains. A simulation algorithm is developed which is firmly rooted in this stochastic semantics. Two examples, the movement processes in the phototaxis of Euglena and the cooperative binding in the gene regulation of the lambda Phage, underline the applicability of pi(L) to systems biology

Equivalences and calculi for formal verification of cryptographic protocols

Security protocols are essential to the proper functioning of any distributed system running over an insecure network but often have flaws that can be exploited even without breaking the cryptography. Formal cryptography, the assumption that the cryptographic primitives are flawless, facilitates the construction of formal models and verification tools. Such models are often based on process calculi, small formal languages for modelling communicating systems. The spi calculus, a process calculus for the modelling and formal verification of cryptographic protocols, is an extension of the pi calculus with cryptography. In the spi calculus, security properties can be formulated as equations on process terms, so no external formalism is needed. Moreover, the contextual nature of observational process equivalences takes into account any attacker/environment that can be expressed in the calculus. We set out to address the problem of automatic verification of observational equivalence in an extension of the spi calculus: A channel-passing calculus with a more general expression language. As a first step, we study existing non-contextual proof techniques for a particular canonical contextual equivalence. In contrast to standard process calculi, reasoning on cryptographic processes must take into account the partial knowledge of the environment about transmitted messages. In the setting of the spi calculus, several notions of environment-sensitive bisimulation has been developed to treat this environment knowledge. We exhibit distinguishing examples between several of these notions, including ones previously believed to coincide. We then give a general framework for comparison of environment-sensitive relations, based on a comparison of the corresponding kinds of environment and notions of environment consistency. Within this framework we perform an exhaustive comparison of the different bisimulations, where every possible relation that is not proven is disproven. For the second step, we consider the question of which expression languages are suitable. Extending the expression language to account for more sophisticated cryptographic primitives or other kinds of data terms quickly leads to decidability issues. Two important problems in this area are the knowledge problem and an indistinguishability problem called static equivalence. It is known that decidability of static equivalence implies decidability of knowledge in many cases; we exhibit an expression language where knowledge is decidable but static equivalence is not. We then define a class of constructor-destructor expression languages and prove that environment consistency over any such language directly corresponds to static equivalence in a particular extension thereof. We proceed to place some loose constraints on deterministic expression evaluation, and redefine the spi calculus in this more general setting. Once we have chosen an expression language, we encounter a third problem, which is inherent in the operational semantics of message-passing process calculi: The possibility to receive arbitrary messages gives rise to infinite branching on process input. To mitigate this problem, we define a symbolic semantics, where the substitution of received messages for input variables never takes place. Instead, input variables are only subject to logical constraints. We then use this symbolic semantics to define a symbolic bisimulation that is sound and complete with respect to its concrete counterpart, extending the possibilities for automated bisimulation checkers