Testing equivalence as a bisimulation equivalence

  • Rance Cleaveland
  • Matthew Hennessy
Process Algebras And Systems Of Communicating Processes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 407)


In this paper we show how the testing equivalences and preorders on transition systems may be interpreted as instances of generalized bisimulation equivalences and prebisimulation preorders. The characterization relies on defining transformations on the transition systems in such a way that the testing relations on the original systems correspond to (pre)bisimulation relations on the altered systems. Using these results, it is possible to use algorithms for determining the (pre)bisimulation relations in the case of finite-state transition systems to compute the testing relations.


  1. [1]
    Bloom, B., S. Istrail and A. Meyer. “Bisimulation Can't Be Traced.” Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Cleaveland, R., J. Parrow and B. Steffen. “The Concurrency Workbench.” To appear in the Proceedings of the Workshop on the Automated Verification of Finite-State Systems, Grenoble, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    DeNicola, R. and M. Hennessy. “Testing Equivalences for Processes.” Theoretical Computer Science 24, 1984, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hennessy, M. “Acceptance Trees.” Journal of the ACM, v. 32, n. 4, October 1985, pp. 896–928.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hennessy, M. Algebraic Theory of Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hennessy, M. and R. Milner. “Algebraic Laws for Nondeterminism and Concurrency.” Journal of the ACM, v. 32, n. 1, January 1985, pp. 137–161.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hoare, C.A.R. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International, London, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hopcroft, J. and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kanellakis, P.C. and S.A. Smolka. “CCS Expressions, Finite State Processes, and Three Problems of Equivalence.” Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1983, pp. 228–240.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Larsen, K. and A. Skou. “Bisimulation through Probabilistic Testing.” Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Milner, R. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 92. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Milner, R. “Calculi for Synchrony and Asynchrony.” Theoretical Computer Science, v. 25, n. 3, July 1983, pp. 267–310.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Milner, R. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Paige, R. and R.E. Tarjan. “Three Partition Refinement Algorithms.” SIAM Journal of Computing, v. 16, n. 6, December 1987, pp. 973–989.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Park, D. “Concurrency and Automata in Infinite Strings.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 104, pp. 167–183. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Walker, D. “Bisimulations and Divergence in CCS.” Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 186–192. Computer Society Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rance Cleaveland
    • 1
  • Matthew Hennessy
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of SussexFalmer, BrightonEngland

Personalised recommendations