Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria

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 quality 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. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2015, arXiv:1508.06347. The Isabelle/HOL source files, and a full proof document, are available in the Archive of Formal Proofs, at http://afp.sourceforge.net/entries/Encodability_Process_Calculi.shtm

On the relative expressiveness of higher-order session processes

By integrating constructs from the λ-calculus and the π-calculus, in higher-order process calculi exchanged values may contain processes. This paper studies the relative expressiveness of HOπ, the higher-order π-calculus in which communications are governed by session types. Our main discovery is that HO, a subcalculus of HOπ which lacks name-passing and recursion, can serve as a new core calculus for session-typed higher-order concurrency. By exploring a new bisimulation for HO, we show that HO can encode HOπ fully abstractly (up to typed contextual equivalence) more precisely and efficiently than the first-order session π-calculus (π). Overall, under session types, HOπ, HO, and π are equally expressive; however, HOπ and HO are more tightly related than HOπ and π

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

Matching in the Pi-Calculus (Technical Report)

We study whether, in the pi-calculus, the match prefix---a conditional operator testing two names for (syntactic) equality---is expressible via the other operators. Previously, Carbone and Maffeis proved that matching is not expressible this way under rather strong requirements (preservation and reflection of observables). Later on, Gorla developed a by now widely-tested set of criteria for encodings that allows much more freedom (e.g. instead of direct translations of observables it allows comparison of calculi with respect to reachability of successful states). In this paper, we offer a considerably stronger separation result on the non-expressibility of matching using only Gorla's relaxed requirements.Comment: This report extends a paper in EXPRESS/SOS'14 and provides the missing proof