The question we consider in this paper is: “When can a combination of fine-grain execution steps be contracted into an atomic action execution”? Our answer is basically: “When no observer can see the difference.” This is worked out in detail by defining a notion of coupled split/atomic simulation refinement between systems which differ in the atomicity of their actions, and proving that this collapses to Parrow and Sjödin’s coupled similarity when the systems are composed with an observer.
KeywordsVirtual Machine Atomic Action Idle State Label Transition System Process Algebra
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.J. C. M. Baeten and W. P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- 6.E. Brinksma, B. Jonsson, and F. Orava. Refining interfaces of communicating systems. In S. Abramsky and T. S. E. Maibaum, eds., TAPSOFT’ 91, Volume 2, vol. 494 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 297–312. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- 10.R. J. van Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum II: The semantics of sequential systems with silent moves. In E. Best, ed., Concur’ 93, vol. 715 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 66–81. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
- 11.R. J. van Glabbeek and F. W. Vaandrager. Petri Net models for algebraic theories of concurrency. In J. W. de Bakker, A. J. Nijman, and P. C. Treleaven, eds., PARLE — Parallel Architectures and Languages Europe, Volume II: Parallel Languages, vol. 259 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 224–242. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
- 13.R. J. vanGlabbeek and W. P. Weijland. Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM, 43(3):555–600, May 1996.Google Scholar
- 14.R. Gorrieri and C. Laneve. Split and ST bisimulation semantics. Information and Computation, 116(1):272–288, Jan. 1995.Google Scholar
- 15.C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
- 16.S. Katz. Refinement with global equivalence proofs in temporal logic. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, 29:59–78, 1997.Google Scholar
- 17.L. Lamport. The mutual exclusion problem, part I — a theory of interprocess communication. J. ACM, 33(2):313–326, Apr. 1986.Google Scholar
- 18.R. Langerak. Transformations and Semantics for LOTOS. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Nov. 1992.Google Scholar
- 19.N. A. Lynch, M. Merritt, W. E. Weihl, and A. Fekete. Atomic Transactions. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1994.Google Scholar
- 21.R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
- 22.U. Nestmann and B. Pierce. Decoding choice encodings. In U. Montanari and V. Sassone, eds., Concur’ 96: Concurrency Theory, vol. 1119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 179–194. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
- 24.J. Parrow and P. Sjödin. The complete axiomatization of Cs-congruence. In R. Enjalbert, E. W. Mayr, and K. W. Wagner, s., STACS 94, vol. 775 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 557–568. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
- 25.A. Rensink. A theory of action contraction, 2000. Full version (including proofs): http://www.cs. utwente.nl/~rensink/contract.ps.gz.
- 26.A. Rensink and R. Gorrieri. Vertical implementation. Information and Computation, 2000 (to appear). Extended version of “Vertical Bisimulation” (TAPSOFT’ 97); see also Hildesheimer Informatik-Bericht 9/98, University of Hildesheim.Google Scholar