Advertisement

On the Benefits of Using the Up-To Techniques for Bisimulation Verification

  • Daniel Hirschkoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1579)

Abstract

We advocate the use of the up—to techniques for bisimulation in the field of automatic verification. To this end, we develop a tool to perform proofs using the up to structural congruence, the up to restrictions and the up to parallel composition proof techniques for bisimulation between π—calculus terms. The latter technique is of particular interest because it allows one to reason on infinite state space processes. To use it in full effect, we adapt the “on the fly” bisimulation checking algorithm, leading to a form of computational completeness. The usefulness of these techniques in dealing with the expressive power of the π—calculus is illustrated on two non trivial examples, namely the treatment of persistent data structures and the alternating bit protocol. These examples are also good opportunities to study how well—known π—calculus encodings behave in the framework of automatic verification.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Expressive Power Label Transition System Proof Technique Object Part 
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.

References

  1. FM91.
    J.-C. Fernandez and L. Mounier. “On the fly” verification of behavioural equivalences and preorders. In Proceedings of CAV’91, LNCS, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Hir98.
    D. Hirschkoff. Automatically Proving Up To Bisimulation. In Proceedings of MFCS’98 Workshop on Concurrency, volume 18 of ENTCS, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. Mam98.
    B. Mammas. Une mtéthodologie de preuves orientée contraintes et basée sur les systèmes de transitions modales. Technical report, LIP6, UPMC, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. Mil91.
    R. Milner. The polyadic π-calculus: a tutorial. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-91-180, LFCS, October 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Nes97.
    U. Nestmann. What is a ‘good’ encoding of guarded choice? In Proceedings of EXPRESS’97, volume 7 of ENTCS, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. NP96.
    U. Nestmann and B. C. Pierce. Decoding choice encodings. In Proceedings of CONCUR’ 96, number 1119. LNCS, Springer Verlag, August 1996.Google Scholar
  7. PT87.
    R. Paige and R. E. Tarjan. Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 16(6):973–989, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. PT97.
    B. C. Pierce and D. N. Turner. Pict: A Programming Language Based on the Pi-Calculus. Technical Report CSCI 476, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. San95.
    D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. In Proceedings of MFCS’ 95, volume 969 of LNCS, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. San96.
    D. Sangiorgi. A theory of bisimulation for the π-calculus. Acta Informatica, 33:69–97, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. San97.
    D. Sangiorgi. The name discipline of uniform receptiveness. In Proceedings of ICALP’ 97, volume 1256 of LNCS, pages 303–313, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. VM94.
    B. Victor and F. Moller. The MobilityWorkbench—a tool for the π-calculus. In D. Dill, editor, Proceedings of CAV’94, volume 818 of LNCS, pages 428-440. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Hirschkoff
    • 1
  1. 1.CERMICS - ENPC/INRIAMarne la Vallée Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations