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

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

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 Expressiveness of Intensional Communication

The expressiveness of communication primitives has been explored in a common framework based on the pi-calculus by considering four features: synchronism (asynchronous vs synchronous), arity (monadic vs polyadic data), communication medium (shared dataspaces vs channel-based), and pattern-matching (binding to a name vs testing name equality). Here pattern-matching is generalised to account for terms with internal structure such as in recent calculi like Spi calculi, Concurrent Pattern Calculus and Psi calculi. This paper explores intensionality upon terms, in particular communication primitives that can match upon both names and structures. By means of possibility/impossibility of encodings, this paper shows that intensionality alone can encode synchronism, arity, communication-medium, and pattern-matching, yet no combination of these without intensionality can encode any intensional language.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127

An Intensional Concurrent Faithful Encoding of Turing Machines

The benchmark for computation is typically given as Turing computability; the ability for a computation to be performed by a Turing Machine. Many languages exploit (indirect) encodings of Turing Machines to demonstrate their ability to support arbitrary computation. However, these encodings are usually by simulating the entire Turing Machine within the language, or by encoding a language that does an encoding or simulation itself. This second category is typical for process calculi that show an encoding of lambda-calculus (often with restrictions) that in turn simulates a Turing Machine. Such approaches lead to indirect encodings of Turing Machines that are complex, unclear, and only weakly equivalent after computation. This paper presents an approach to encoding Turing Machines into intensional process calculi that is faithful, reduction preserving, and structurally equivalent. The encoding is demonstrated in a simple asymmetric concurrent pattern calculus before generalised to simplify infinite terms, and to show encodings into Concurrent Pattern Calculus and Psi Calculi.Comment: In Proceedings ICE 2014, arXiv:1410.701

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

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