Branching vs. Linear Time: Semantical Perspective

  • Sumit Nain
  • Moshe Y. Vardi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4762)

Abstract

The discussion in the computer-science literature of the relative merits of linear- versus branching-time frameworks goes back to early 1980s. One of the beliefs dominating this discussion has been that the linear-time framework is not expressive enough semantically, making linear-time logics lacking in expressiveness. In this work we examine the branching-linear issue from the perspective of process equivalence, which is one of the most fundamental notions in concurrency theory, as defining a notion of process equivalence essentially amounts to defining semantics for processes. Over the last three decades numerous notions of process equivalence have been proposed. Researchers in this area do not anymore try to identify the “right” notion of equivalence. Rather, focus has shifted to providing taxonomic frameworks, such as “the linear-branching spectrum”, for the many proposed notions and trying to determine suitability for different applications.

We revisit here this issue from a fresh perspective. We postulate three principles that we view as fundamental to any discussion of process equivalence. First, we borrow from research in denotational semantics and take observational equivalence as the primary notion of equivalence. This eliminates many testing scenarios as either too strong or too weea. Second, we require the description of a process to fully specify all relevant behavioral aspects of the process. Finally, we require observable process behavior to be reflected in its input/output behavior. Under these postulates the distinctions between the linear and branching semantics tend to evaporate. As an example, we apply these principles to the framework of transducers, a classical notion of state-based processes that dates back to the 1950s and is well suited to hardware modeling. We show that our postulates result in a unique notion of process equivalence, which is trace based, rather than tree based.

Keywords

Model Check Linear Time Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Output Channel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Composing specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languagues and Systems 15(1), 73–132 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abramsky, S.: Observation equivalence as a testing equivalence. Theor. Comput. Sci. 53, 225–241 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abramsky, S.: What are the fundamental structures of concurrency?: We still don’t know! Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 162, 37–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armoni, R., Fix, L., Flaisher, A., Gerth, R., Ginsburg, B., Kanza, T., Landver, A., Mador-Haim, S., Singerman, E., Tiemeyer, A., Vardi, M.Y., Zbar, Y.: The ForSpec temporal logic: A new temporal property-specification logic. In: Katoen, J-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 211–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Geist, D., Gewirtzman, R., Yoeli, M.: Methodology and system for practical formal verification of reactive hardware. In: Dill, D.L. (ed.) CAV 1994. LNCS, vol. 818, pp. 182–193. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ben-Ari, M., Pnueli, A., Manna, Z.: The temporal logic of branching time. Acta Informatica 20, 207–226 (1983)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. Science of Computer Programming 19(2), 87–152 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bloom, B., Istrail, S., Meyer, A.R.: Bisimulation can’t be traced. J. ACM 42(1), 232–268 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bloom, B., Meyer, A.R.: Experimenting with process equivalence. Theor. Comput. Sci. 101(2), 223–237 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bol, R.N., Groote, J.F.: The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. J. ACM 43(5), 863–914 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boreale, M., Pugliese, R.: Basic observables for processes. Information and Computation 149(1), 77–98 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brookes, S.D.: Traces, pomsets, fairness and full abstraction for communicating processes. In: Brim, L., Jančar, P., Křetínský, M., Kucera, A. (eds.) CONCUR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2421, pp. 466–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Browne, M.C., Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O.: Characterizing finite Kripke structures in propositional temporal logic. Theoretical Computer Science 59, 115–131 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carmo, J., Sernadas, A.: Branching vs linear logics yet again. Formal Aspects of Computing 2, 24–59 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Databases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke, E.M., Draghicescu, I.A.: Expressibility results for linear-time and branching-time logics. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 354, pp. 428–437. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languagues and Systems 8(2), 244–263 (1986)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.: Verification tools for finite-state concurrent systems. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Decade of Concurrency – Reflections and Perspectives (Proceedings of REX School). LNCS, vol. 803, pp. 124–175. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 83–133 (1984)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dill, D.L.: Trace theory for automatic hierarchical verification of speed independent circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D.: A Practical Introduction to PSL. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Emerson, E.A., Clarke, E.M.: Characterizing correctness properties of parallel programs using fixpoints. In: Proc. 7th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pp. 169–181 (1980)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Sometimes and not never revisited: On branching versus linear time. Journal of the ACM 33(1), 151–178 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.-L.: Modalities for model checking: Branching time logic strikes back. In: Proc. 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 84–96 (1985)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emerson, E.A., Mok, A.K., Sistla, A.P., Srinivasan, J.: Quantitative temporal reasoning. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 136–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fisler, K., Vardi, M.Y.: Bisimulation minimization and symbolic model checking. Formal Methods in System Design 21(1), 39–78 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time – branching time spectrum I; the semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) Handbook of Process Algebra. Ch-1, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goering, R.: Model checking expands verification’s scope. Electronic Engineering Today (February 1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Groote, J.F.: Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theor. Comput. Sci. 118(2), 263–299 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hachtel, G.D., Somenzi, F.: Logic Synthesis and Verification Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hartmanis, J., Stearns, R.E.: Algebraic Structure Theory of Sequential Machines. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1966)MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hennessy, M.: Algebraic Theory of Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. Journal of the ACM 32, 137–161 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jonsson, B.: A fully abstract trace model for dataflow networks. In: Proc. 16th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 155–165 (1989)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kupferman, O., Piterman, N., Vardi, M.Y.: From liveness to promptness. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 406–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lamport, L.: Sometimes is sometimes not never - on the temporal logic of programs. In: Proc. 7th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 174–185 (1980)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A.: Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In: Proc. 12th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 97–107 (1985)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lynch, N.A., Tuttle, M.R.: An introduction to input/output automata. CWI Quarterly 2(3), 219–246 (1989)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Main, M.G.: Trace, failure and testing equivalences for communicating processes. Int’l J. of Parallel Programming 16(5), 383–400 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marek, W.W., Trusczynski, M.: Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCarthy, J.: Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13(1-2), 27–39 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Milner, R.: Processes: a mathematical model of computing agents. In: Logic Colloquium, North Holland, pp. 157–173 (1975)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Olderog, E.R., Hoare, C.A.R.: Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Inf. 23(1), 9–66 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) Theoretical Computer Science, GI 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proc. 18th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pnueli, A.: Linear and branching structures in the semantics and logics of reactive systems. In: Brauer, W. (ed.) ICALP 1985. LNCS, vol. 194, pp. 15–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in Cesar. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Proc. 8th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 32, 733–749 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stirling, C.: Comparing linear and branching time temporal logics. In: Banieqbal, B., Pnueli, A., Barringer, H. (eds.) Temporal Logic in Specification. LNCS, vol. 398, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stirling, C.: The joys of bisimulation. In: Brim, L., Gruska, J., Zlatuška, J. (eds.) MFCS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1450, pp. 142–151. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vaandrager, F.W.: On the relationship between process algebra and input/output automata. In: Proc. 6th IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 387–398 (1991)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Linear vs. branching time: A complexity-theoretic perspective. In: Proc. 13th IEEE Sym. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 394–405 (1998)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Sometimes and not never re-revisited: on branching vs. linear time. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Branching vs. linear time: Final showdown. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) ETAPS 2001 and TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Proc. 1st IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 332–344 (1986)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vijayaraghavan, S., Ramanathan, M.: A Practical Guide for SystemVerilog Assertions. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Winskel, G.: The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumit Nain
    • 1
  • Moshe Y. Vardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Rice University, Department of Computer Science, Houston, TX 77005-1892USA

Personalised recommendations