Explicit fairness in testing semantics

In this paper we investigate fair computations in the pi-calculus. Following Costa and Stirling's approach for CCS-like languages, we consider a method to label process actions in order to filter out unfair computations. We contrast the existing fair-testing notion with those that naturally arise by imposing weak and strong fairness. This comparison provides insight about the expressiveness of the various `fair' testing semantics and about their discriminating power.Comment: 27 pages, 1 figure, appeared in LMC

Fair Π

AbstractIn this paper, we define fair computations in the π-calculus [Milner, R., Parrow, J. & Walker, D., A Calculus of Mobile Processes, Part I and II, Information and Computation 100 (1992) 1–78]. We follow Costa and Stirling's approach for CCS-like languages [Costa, G. & Stirling, C., A Fair Calculus of Communicating Systems, Acta Informatica 21 (1984) 417–441, Costa, G. & Stirling, C., Weak and Strong Fairness in CCS, Information and Computation 73 (1987) 207–244] but exploit a more natural labeling method of process actions to filter out unfair process executions. The new labeling allows us to prove all the significant properties of the original one, such as unicity, persistence and disappearance of labels. It also turns out that the labeled π-calculus is a conservative extension of the standard one. We contrast the existing fair testing [Brinksma, E., Rensink, A. & Vogler, W., Fair Testing, Proc. of CONCUR'95, LNCS, 962 (1995) 313–327, Natarajan, V. & Cleaveland, R., Divergence and Fair Testing, Proc. of ICALP '95, LNCS, 944 (1995) 648–659] with those that naturally arise by imposing weak and strong fairness as defined by Costa and Stirling. This comparison provides the expressiveness of the various fair testing-based semantics and emphasizes the discriminating power of the one already proposed in the literature

Analysing Mutual Exclusion using Process Algebra with Signals

In contrast to common belief, the Calculus of Communicating Systems (CCS) and similar process algebras lack the expressive power to accurately capture mutual exclusion protocols without enriching the language with fairness assumptions. Adding a fairness assumption to implement a mutual exclusion protocol seems counter-intuitive. We employ a signalling operator, which can be combined with CCS, or other process calculi, and show that this minimal extension is expressive enough to model mutual exclusion: we confirm the correctness of Peterson's mutual exclusion algorithm for two processes, as well as Lamport's bakery algorithm, under reasonable assumptions on the underlying memory model. The correctness of Peterson's algorithm for more than two processes requires stronger, less realistic assumptions on the underlying memory model.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2017, arXiv:1709.0004

Fair Pi

International audienceIn this paper, we define fair computations in the pi-calculus. We follow Costa and Stirling's approach for CCS-like languages but exploit a more natural labeling method of process actions to filter out unfair process executions. The new labeling allows us to prove all the significant properties of the original one, such as unicity, persistence and disappearance of labels. It also turns out that the labeled pi-calculus is a conservative extension of the standard one. We contrast the existing fair testing with those that naturally arise by imposing weak and strong fairness as defined by Costa and Stirling. This comparison provides the expressiveness of the various fair testing-based semantics and emphasizes the discriminating power of the one already proposed in the literature

Justness: A Completeness Criterion for Capturing Liveness Properties (Extended Abstract)

This paper poses that transition systems constitute a good model of distributed systems only in combination with a criterion telling which paths model complete runs of the represented systems. Among such criteria, progress is too weak to capture relevant liveness properties, and fairness is often too strong; for typical applications we advocate the intermediate criterion of justness. Previously, we proposed a definition of justness in terms of an asymmetric concurrency relation between transitions. Here we define such a concurrency relation for the transition systems associated to the process algebra CCS as well as its extensions with broadcast communication and signals, thereby making these process algebras suitable for capturing liveness properties requiring justness.Comment: An extended abstract of this paper appears in Proc. FoSSaCS'1

Automated Analysis of MUTEX Algorithms with FASE

In this paper we study the liveness of several MUTEX solutions by representing them as processes in PAFAS s, a CCS-like process algebra with a specific operator for modelling non-blocking reading behaviours. Verification is carried out using the tool FASE, exploiting a correspondence between violations of the liveness property and a special kind of cycles (called catastrophic cycles) in some transition system. We also compare our approach with others in the literature. The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, we want to demonstrate the applicability of FASE to some concrete, meaningful examples; on the other hand, we want to study the impact of introducing non-blocking behaviours in modelling concurrent systems.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2011, arXiv:1106.081

Read Operators and their Expressiveness in Process Algebras

We study two different ways to enhance PAFAS, a process algebra for modelling asynchronous timed concurrent systems, with non-blocking reading actions. We first add reading in the form of a read-action prefix operator. This operator is very flexible, but its somewhat complex semantics requires two types of transition relations. We also present a read-set prefix operator with a simpler semantics, but with syntactic restrictions. We discuss the expressiveness of read prefixes; in particular, we compare them to read-arcs in Petri nets and justify the simple semantics of the second variant by showing that its processes can be translated into processes of the first with timed-bisimilar behaviour. It is still an open problem whether the first algebra is more expressive than the second; we give a number of laws that are interesting in their own right, and can help to find a backward translation.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS 2011, arXiv:1108.407

Explicit Fairness in Testing Semantics

International audienceIn this paper we investigate fair computations in the $\pi$-calculus \cite{MPW92}. Following Costa and Stirling's approach for CCS-like languages \cite{CS84,CS87}, we consider a method to label process actions in order to filter out unfair computations. We contrast the existing fair-testing notion \cite{RV07,NC95} with those that naturally arise by imposing weak and strong fairness. This comparison provides insight about the expressiveness of the various `fair' testing semantics and about their discriminating power