Advertisement

A remark on bisimulation between probabilistic processes

  • Bard Bloom
  • Albert R. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 363)

Abstract

Larsen and Skou have recently demonstrated that the notion of bisimulation—which Milner introduced as a fundamental equivalence on concurrent processes—arises in a natural way as an “experimental” equivalence on probabilistic processes. In this paper we further clarify how bisimulation arises in this probabilistic setting: the transitions of two labelled transition systems can be assigned weights so that the trees are indistinguishable by a very general kind of probabilistic experiment iff the trees are bisimilar. However, we exhibit a pair of computable, bisimilar systems which are experimentally distinguishable for any computable weighting of their transitions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Abramsky. Observation equivalence as a testing equivalence. Theoretical Computer Sci., 1986. Submitted.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Abramsky. Tutorial on concurrency. Invited Lecture at 15th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, Jan. 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Bloom, S. Istrail, and A. R. Meyer. Bisimulation can't be traced: preliminary report. In 15th Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, pages 229–239, ACM, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Bloom and A. R. Meyer. Experimenting with process equivalence. 1989. In Preparation.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. C. B. Hennessy and R. Milner. On observing nondeterminism and concurrency. In J. D. Bakker and J. van Leeuwen, editors, 7th ICALP, pages 299–309, Volume 85 of Lect. Notes in Computer Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Comm. ACM, 21:666–677, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Series in Computer Science, Prentice-Hall, 1985. 256 pp.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. Larsen and A. Skou. Bisimulation through probabilistic testing (preliminary report). Technical Report R 88-16, Institut for Elektroniske Systemer, Aalborg Universitetscenter, June 1988. Also in 15th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, Jan. 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Volume 92 of Lect. Notes in Computer Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Milner. A modal characterisation of observable machine-behavior. In Proceedings CAAP '81, Volume 112 of Lect. Notes in Computer Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Milner. Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. Theoretical Computer Sci., 25:267–310, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Milner. Lectures on a calculus for communicating systems. In S. D. Brookes, A. W. Roscoe, and G. Winskel, editors, Seminar on Concurrency, pages 197–220, Volume 197 of Lect. Notes in Computer Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus Univ., Computer Science Dept., Denmark, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Pnueli. Linear and branching structures in the semantics and logics of reactive systems. In W. Brauer, editor, Int'l Conf. Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 15–32, Volume 194 of Lect. Notes in Computer Sci., Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bard Bloom
    • 1
  • Albert R. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.MIT Lab. for Computer Sci.USA

Personalised recommendations