A Coalgebraic View of Characteristic Formulas in Equational Modal Fixed Point Logics

  • Sebastian Enqvist
  • Joshua Sack
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8446)


The literature on process theory and structural operational semantics abounds with various notions of behavioural equivalence and, more generally, simulation preorders. An important problem in this area from the point of view of logic is to find formulas that characterize states in finite transition systems with respect to these various relations. Recent work by Aceto et al. shows how such characterizing formulas in equational modal fixed point logics can be obtained for a wide variety of behavioural preorders using a single method. In this paper, we apply this basic insight from the work by Aceto et al. to Baltag’s “logics for coalgebraic simulation” to obtain a general result that yields characteristic formulas for a wide range of relations, including strong bisimilarity, simulation, as well as bisimulation and simulation on Markov chains and more. Hence this paper both generalizes the work of Aceto et al. and makes explicit the coalgebraic aspects of their work.


Label Transition System Kripke Frame Structural Operational Semantic Characteristic Formula Weak Bisimulation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Adámek, J., Gumm, H.P., Trnková, V.: Presentation of set functors: a coalgebraic perspective. J. Logic Comput. 20(5), 991–1015 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aceto, L., Ingolfsdottir, A., Levy, P., Sack, J.: Characteristic formulae for fixed-point semantics: a general framework. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 22(02), 125–173 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltag, A.: A logic for coalgebraic simulation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 33, 42–46 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barr, M.: Relational algebras. In: MacLane, S., et al. (eds.) Reports of the Midwest Category Seminar IV. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 137, pp. 39–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barr, M.: Terminal coalgebras in well-founded set theory. Theor. Comput. Sci. 114, 299–315 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Breugel, F., Mislove, M., Ouaknine, J., Worrell, J.: Domain theory, testing and simulation for labelled Markov processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 333, 171–197 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes, J., Jacobs, B.: Simulations in coalgebra. Theor. Comput. Sci. 327(1–2), 71–108 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurz, A., Leal, R.: Equational coalgebraic logic. In: Abramsky, S., Mislove, M., Palamidessi, C. (eds.): Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (MFPS 2009) Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 249, pp. 333–356 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levy, P.B.: Similarity quotients as final coalgebras. In: Hofmann, M. (ed.) FOSSACS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6604, pp. 27–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marti, J.: Relation liftings in coalgebraic modal logic. M.Sc. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marti, J., Venema, Y.: Lax extensions of coalgebra functors. In: Pattinson, D., Schröder, L. (eds.) CMCS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7399, pp. 150–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marti, J., Venema, Y.: Lax extensions of coalgebra functors and their logics. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. (2014), to appearGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moss, L.: Coalgebraic logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 96, 277–317 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller-Olm, M.: Derivation of characteristic formulae. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 18, 159–170 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sack, J., Zhang, L.: A general framework for probabilistic characterizing formulae. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 396–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Segala, R., Lynch, N.: Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processes. Nord. J. Comput. 2(2), 250–273 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thijs, A.: Simulation and fixpoint semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venema, Y.: Automata and fixed point logic: a coalgebraic perspective. Inf. Comput. 204, 637–678 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic, Language, and ComputationUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations