On the Expressiveness of Joining

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 vs intensionality). Here another dimension coordination is considered that accounts for the number of processes required for an interaction to occur. Coordination generalises binary languages such as pi-calculus to joining languages that combine inputs such as the Join Calculus and general rendezvous calculus. By means of possibility/impossibility of encodings, this paper shows coordination is unrelated to the other features. That is, joining languages are more expressive than binary languages, and no combination of the other features can encode a joining language into a binary language. Further, joining is not able to encode any of the other features unless they could be encoded otherwise.Comment: In Proceedings ICE 2015, arXiv:1508.04595. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1408.145

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

Expressiveness of Process Algebras

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

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

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