Checking equivalences between concurrent systems of finite agents (Extended abstract)
Consider two synchronously communicating systems p and q over finite agents. Assume that one wants to check whether p ∼ q for one of the commonly used equivalences. We show that this question is PSPACE hard for all equivalences which lie between strong bisimulation and trace equivalences. For some equivalences exponential lower and upper bounds are proven. We also show that this problem is NP hard and co-NP hard even for a class of very simple finite agents.
Dataflow nets are the simplest systems of asynchronously communicating agents. Let ∼ be an equivalence which lies between strong bisimulation and trace equivalences. We show that there is no algorithm for checking ∼-equivalence between dataflow nets over finite state agents.
KeywordsCheck Equivalence Parallel Composition Label Transition System Finite State Automaton Trace Equivalence
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [ABGS]C. Alvarez, J. Balcazar, J. Gabarro and M. Santa. Parallel Complexity in the design and analysis of concurrent systems. In PARL 91, volume 505 of Lect. Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- [Bl]B. Bloom. Ready Simulation, Bisimulation, and the Semantics of CCS-like languages. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-491, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Fu]M. Furer. The complexity of inequivalence problem for regular expressions with intersection. In Proc. 7th ICALP, volume 85 of Lect. Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
- [GM]J. F. Groote and F. Moller. Verification of Parallel System via Decomposition. Preliminary Report, CWI 1991.Google Scholar
- [GV]J. F. Groote and F. Vaandrager. An Efficient Algorithm for Branching Bisimulation and Stuttering Equivalence. In International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 443 of Lect. Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 90.Google Scholar
- [He]M. Hennessy. Algebraic Theory of Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.Google Scholar
- [Ho]C. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, 1985.Google Scholar
- [HU]J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Lamguages and Computations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979.Google Scholar
- [Hu]H. Hunt. The equivalence problem for regular expressions with intersection is not polynomial in tape, Tech. Rep. TR 73-161, Cornell University, 1973.Google Scholar
- [MS]A. J. Mayer and L. J. Stockmeyer. World Problems — This Time with Interleaving. Technical Report, IBM RJ8180, July, 1991.Google Scholar
- [Mi]R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, 1989.Google Scholar
- [KS]P. C. Kanellakis and S. A. Smolka. CCS Expressions, Finite State Processes, and Three Problems of Equivalence. In Information and Computation, volume 86, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Pa]D. Park. Concurrency and Automata on infinite sequences. volume 104 of Lect. Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
- [Plo]G. Plotkin. A structured approach to operational semantics. FN 19 DAIMI, Aarhus Univ., 1981.Google Scholar
- [SM]L. J. Stockmeyer and A. R. Meyer. Word Problems Requiring Exponential Time. In Proc. 5th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1973.Google Scholar
- [Sto]L. J. Stockmeyer. Private communication, Jan 1992.Google Scholar