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

Matching in the Pi-Calculus

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: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127

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

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

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

Probabilistic Operational Correspondence

Encodings are the main way to compare process calculi. By applying quality criteria to encodings we analyse their quality and rule out trivial or meaningless encodings. Thereby, operational correspondence is one of the most common and most important quality criteria. It ensures that processes and their translations have the same abstract behaviour. We analyse probabilistic versions of operational correspondence to enable such a verification for probabilistic systems. Concretely, we present three versions of probabilistic operational correspondence: weak, middle, and strong. We show the relevance of the weaker version using an encoding from a sublanguage of probabilistic CCS into the probabilistic ?-calculus. Moreover, we map this version of probabilistic operational correspondence onto a probabilistic behavioural relation that directly relates source and target terms. Then we can analyse the quality of the criterion by analysing the relation it induces between a source term and its translation. For the second version of probabilistic operational correspondence we proceed in the opposite direction. We start with a standard simulation relation for probabilistic systems and map it onto a probabilistic operational correspondence criterion

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

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

Priorities Without Priorities: Representing Preemption in Psi-Calculi

Psi-calculi is a parametric framework for extensions of the pi-calculus with data terms and arbitrary logics. In this framework there is no direct way to represent action priorities, where an action can execute only if all other enabled actions have lower priority. We here demonstrate that the psi-calculi parameters can be chosen such that the effect of action priorities can be encoded. To accomplish this we define an extension of psi-calculi with action priorities, and show that for every calculus in the extended framework there is a corresponding ordinary psi-calculus, without priorities, and a translation between them that satisfies strong operational correspondence. This is a significantly stronger result than for most encodings between process calculi in the literature. We also formally prove in Nominal Isabelle that the standard congruence and structural laws about strong bisimulation hold in psi-calculi extended with priorities.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127