Refining the Process Rewrite Systems Hierarchy via Ground Tree Rewrite Systems

  • Stefan Göller
  • Anthony Widjaja Lin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6901)

Abstract

In his seminal paper, R. Mayr introduced the well-known Process Rewrite Systems (PRS) hierarchy, which contains many well-studied classes of infinite systems including pushdown systems, Petri nets and PA-processes. A seperate development in the term rewriting community introduced the notion of Ground Tree Rewrite Systems (GTRS), which is a model that strictly extends pushdown systems while still enjoying desirable decidable properties. There have been striking similarities between the verification problems that have been shown decidable (and undecidable) over GTRS and over models in the PRS hierarchy such as PA and PAD processes. It is open to what extent PRS and GTRS are connected in terms of their expressive power. In this paper we pinpoint the exact connection between GTRS and models in the PRS hierarchy in terms of their expressive power with respect to strong, weak, and branching bisimulation. Among others, this connection allows us to give new insights into the decidability results for subclasses of PRS, e.g., simpler proofs of known decidability results of verifications problems on PAD.

Keywords

Model Check Transition System Expressive Power Process Term Rewrite System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Decidability of bisimulation equivalence for processes generating context-free languages. In: de Bakker, J.W., Nijman, A.J., Treleaven, P.C. (eds.) PARLE 1987. LNCS, vol. 259, pp. 94–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W.: Algebra of communicating processes with abstraction. Theor. Comput. Sci. 37, 77–121 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouajjani, A., Echahed, R., Habermehl, P.: On the verification problem of nonregular properties for nonregular processes. In: LICS, pp. 123–133. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouajjani, A., Müller-Olm, M., Touili, T.: Regular symbolic analysis of dynamic networks of pushdown systems. In: Abadi, M., de Alfaro, L. (eds.) CONCUR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3653, pp. 473–487. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouajjani, A., Touili, T.: Reachability analysis of process rewrite systems. In: Pandya, P.K., Radhakrishnan, J. (eds.) FSTTCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2914, pp. 74–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bozzelli, L., Kretínský, M., Rehák, V., Strejcek, J.: On decidability of LTL model checking for process rewrite systems. Acta Inf. 46(1), 1–28 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brainerd, W.S.: Tree generating regular systems. Information and Control 14(2), 217–231 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burkart, O., Caucal, D., Moller, F., Steffen, B.: Verification on infinite structures. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, ch.9, pp. 545–623. Elsevier, North-Holland (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen, S.: Decidability and Decomposition in Process Algebras. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Edinburgh (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coquidé, J.-L., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Vágvölgyi, S.: Bottom-up tree pushdown automata: Classification and connection with rewrite systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(1), 69–98 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dauchet, M., Tison, S.: The theory of ground rewrite systems is decidable. In: LICS, pp. 242–248. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Göller, S., Lin, A.W.: The Complexity of Verifying Ground Tree Rewrite Systems. In: LICS, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (to appear, 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hack, M.H.T.: Decidability Questions for Petri Nets. PhD thesis, MIT (1976)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Löding, C.: Infinite Graphs Generated by Tree Rewriting. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lugiez, D., Schnoebelen, P.: The regular viewpoint on pa-processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 274(1-2), 89–115 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maidl, M.: The common fragment of CTL and LTL. In: FOCS, pp. 643–652 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayr, R.: Process rewrite systems. Inf. Comput. 156(1-2), 264–286 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayr, R.: Decidability of model checking with the temporal logic ef. Theor. Comput. Sci. 256(1-2), 31–62 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muller, D.E., Schupp, P.E.: The theory of ends, pushdown automata, and second-order logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 37, 51–75 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas, W.: Applied automata theory. Course Notes, RWTH Aachen (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    To, A.W.: Model Checking Infinite-State Systems: Generic and Specific Approaches. PhD thesis, LFCS, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    To, A.W., Libkin, L.: Algorithmic metatheorems for decidable LTL model checking over infinite systems. In: Ong, C.-H.L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6014, pp. 221–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Göller
    • 1
  • Anthony Widjaja Lin
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität BremenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceOxford UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations