arxiv: v1 [cs.lo] 28 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND TOMASZ BRENGOS AND MARCO PERESSOTTI arxiv: v1 [cs.lo] 28 Nov 2017 Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, Warszawa, Poland address: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark address: Abstract. Timed automata, and machines alike, currently lack a general mathematical characterisation. This work introduces a uniform understanding of these devices that encompasses known behavioural equivalences such as timed bisimulations and timed language equivalences as well as their weak and time-abstract counterparts. All these notions of equivalence between systems are naturally organised in expressiveness spectra based on their discriminating power; these spectra are shown to be independent from any particular computational effect expressed by the systems under scrutiny. As an application, timed automata and their quantitative extensions such as probabilistic ones are studied. 1. Introduction Timed automata, and machines alike, are abstract devices used in the modelling and verification of real-time dynamical systems and recipients of much attention, both in terms of theoretical and practical developments [2, 13, 28, 30]. Despite decades long efforts, a general and mathematical characterisation of all these devices is missing. A uniform account of these formalisms would provide guidelines for developing new kinds of timed systems starting from existing notions of computations and, from a more foundational point of view, would allow a cross-fertilizing exchange of definitions, notions, and techniques. The theory of coalgebras has been recognized as a good context for the study of concurrent and reactive systems [40]: systems are represented as maps of the form X BX for some suitable behavioural functor B. By changing the underlying category and functor a wide range of cases are covered, from traditional LTSs to systems with I/O, quantitative aspects, probabilistic distribution, and even systems with continuous state. Frameworks of this kind provide great returns from a theoretical and a practical point of view, since they prepare the ground for general results and tools which can be readily instantiated to various cases, and moreover they help us to discover connections and similarities between apparently different notions. Among the several valuable results offered by the coalgebraic approach we mention general accounts of bisimulation [1, 47], structural operational Key words and phrases: Coalgebras, lax functors, general saturation, timed behavioural equivalence, timed language equivalence, timed probabilistic automata. Supported by the grant of Warsaw University of Technology no. 504M for young researchers. Partially supported by the Open Data Framework project at the University of Southern Denmark, and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Natural Sciences, grant DFF

2 2 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI coarser finer weak time-abstract equivalence strong timeabstract equivalence weak timed equivalence strong timed equivalence T! T ε T 1 T ε 1! T 1 abstracts time abstracts silent moves Figure 1: Monoid morphisms (right) and the corresponding spectrum of saturation-based timed behavioural equivalences (left). semantics [25, 48], trace equivalence [17, 19, 21, 22, 38], minimization [6], determinisation [45], up-to techniques [7], higher-order systems [37, 38]. Contributions. In this paper we embrace and extend the lax functorial setting as a general environment where to model systems dynamics. In the approach we propose: the index category models those aspects of the computations under scrutiny associated with the computation context, like time flow; the base category models effects like non-determinism or unobservable moves. Because systems considered in this work have a flat 1 state space we can safely restrict to index categories with one object i.e., monoids. Intuitively, a (lax) functor α: T K assigns to the only object of T an object α( ) of K that represents the system state space and assigns to any morphism t: (e.g., that models a time duration) an action α(t): α( ) α( ) that represents the system dynamics under t. In particular, we illustrate that timed systems are naturally modelled as lax functors. Saturation for LTSs was originally introduced by Milner in order to render internal moves (τ-actions) essentially unobservable to bisimulation. Since [8], saturation has been extended to any type of system that can be modelled as an endomorphism in a suitable category hence offering a categorical understanding of saturation-based behavioural equivalences such as weak bisimulation. Building on [8, 10, 12], we extend the theory of saturation to support abstraction over properties of the computation context. The categorical definition of behavioural equivalence we introduce is parameterised over a monoid congruence and its instances are naturally organised in spectra based on their discriminating power. These spectra reflect the inclusion ordering on congruences with coarser congruences yielding coarser types of behavioural equivalence. This remarkable correspondence allows for reasoning about the expressiveness of these definitions in terms of simple diagrams of monoid homomorphisms (cf., Figure 1). Besides from finer to coarser, this spectrum can be organised along two orthogonal dimensions which intuitively correspond to: 1 We say that a class of systems has flat state spaces when there are no archetypal rôles associated to states that prescribe restrictions on their possible behaviours, as opposed e.g., to alternating games.

3 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 3 weak time-abstract bisimulation strong time-abstract bisimulation weak timed bisimulation strong timed bisimulation abstracts time weak time-abstract language equivalence strong time-abstract language equivalence weak timed language equivalence strong timed language equivalence abstracts silent moves abstracts branching Figure 2: The spectrum of branching and linear equivalences of timed systems. collecting effects modelled in the base category (e.g., unobservable moves like τ- actions); abstracting over aspects modelled in the index category (e.g., time). The former is determined by the counit ε: ( ) Id of the free-monoid adjunction whereas the latter by arbitrary monoid morphisms and their extension to free monoids as exemplified by the commuting diagram shown in Figure 1 on the right. We apply this framework to timed systems and show how strong/weak timed/time-abstract behavioural equivalences are uniformly captured by canonical congruences for the monoid modelling time. In particular, we consider bisimulations and language equivalence for timed systems and for each we obtain, combining abstraction along each dimension, a spectrum of coarser variations as schematised in Figure 1. These spectra are actually two opposing faces in the spectrum depicted in Figure 2 since every type of bisimulation is always finer than its language equivalence counterpart. Bisimulation and language equivalence are in fact an illustrative example of a third, orthogonal abstraction dimension where coarser behavioural equivalences are defined by introducing some degree of abstraction over computation branches. Thanks to the categorical perspective taken in this work, all results are independent from the underlying notion of computation. For instance, spectra in Figures 1 and 2 hold for any type of systems. Synopsis and related work. This work is closely related to research presented in [8 10, 12] with the emphasis laid on [9]. Indeed, Brengos [9], which is highly motivated by Sobociński s work on relational presheaves (i.e., lax functors whose codomain category is the category of sets and relations) and their saturation [46], presents the lax functorial framework as a natural extension of coalgebraic weak bisimulation and saturation studied in [10, 12]. The main focus of [9] is on lax functorial weak bisimulation and reflexive and transitive saturation. We remark that the first author already pointed out in loc. cit. that timed transition systems and their weak behavioural equivalence can be modelled in the lax functorial setting. This work extends these results in a systematic way by: describing the categorical framework which pinpoints the relation between timed automata and their semantics (Section 4), presenting the concept of general saturation and the family of behavioural equivalences associated with it (Section 5),

4 4 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI capturing a much wider spectrum of language and behavioural equivalences (Section 6). This paper is an extended and improved version of our CONCUR 16 paper [11]. We included new results on general expressiveness spectra for behavioural equivalences and instantiated our framework on Segala and other quantitative systems. 2. From coalgebras to endomorphisms Although our line of works on saturation stems from a coalgebraic setting, the notion of saturation itself is naturally defined in terms of endomorphisms (and certain 2-categorical structures) [10, 12]. The focus on endomorphisms is motivated by the need to combine opportune sequences of steps into steps of the same type e.g., as described by the derivation rules x τ y y τ z x a y y τ z x τ y y a z x τ z x a z x a (2.1) z for Milner s saturation of LTSs (a.k.a. double arrow construction) [32]. In order to reconcile this and the algebraic setting observe that there is a class of coalgebras that are also endomorphism: coalgebras whose type carries a monad structure are in fact endomorphisms in the Kleisli category induced by said monad. This additional structure on the type of coalgebras means that it describes at once the shape of these system dynamics (behaviours) but also the effects expressed by their computations. In fact, since Moggi s seminal work [33, 34] computations with effects have been modelled in the context of Kleisli categories of suitable monads leading to a rich and modular theory [5, 24, 35]. The key advantage of this approach is that effects are abstracted by the definition of morphism composition and hence computations modelled as morphisms in these categories can be treated as it they were pure (i.e., effect-free). By taking this perspective (un)observable moves are understood as a computational effect which can thus be modularly combined with other effects and abstracted in the categorical structure. Likewise for accepting moves. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 we recall preliminary definitions of monads and their Kleisli categories introducing the computational effects expressed by timed automata used as examples in this work. In Section 2.3 we recall how unobservable and accepting moves are seen as computational effects themselves and hence modelled as suitable monads Monads and computations with effects. A monad on a category C is a triple (T, µ, η) where T is an endofunctor over C and µ: T T T and η : Id T are two natural transformations with the property that they make the diagrams below commute: µt T 3 T 2 T µ µ T 2 µ T ηt T η T T 2 T These diagrams are the coherence conditions of an associative operation with a unit. In fact, monads over C are monoids in the category of endofunctors over C equipped with the (strict) monoidal structure defined by endofunctor composition. Hence, the natural transformations µ and η are called multiplication and unit of T, respectively. Id T µ Id

5 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 5 Each monad (T, µ, η) gives rise to a canonical category called Kleisli category of T and denoted by Kl(T ). This category has the same objects of the category C underlying T ; its hom-sets are given as Kl(T )(X, Y ) = C(X, T Y ) for any two objects X and Y in C and its composition as g f X f T Y T g T T Z µ Z T Z for any two morphisms f and g with suitable domain and codomain (where and denote composition in Kl(T ) and C respectively). There is a functor ( ) : C Kl(T ) that takes every object X to itself and every morphism f : X Y to η Y f; this functor exhibits C as a wide coreflective subcategory of Kl(T ): ( ) C Kl(T ) U T where the right adjoint U T takes every object X to T X and every morphism f : X Y to its Kleisli extension µ Y T f. This adjoint situation identifies the monad T over C. An immediate consequence of the above situation is Kl(T ) is as cocomplete as is C, especially coproducts (which will be later used to express alternatives and termination). Under mild assumptions on the monad T, monoidal structures carried by C can be inherited (lifted, to be precise Section 2.2) by Kl(T ). Assume that C carries a monoidal structure (C,, I) and write α, λ, and ρ for its associator, left unitor, and right unitor. A monoidal monad over (C,, I) is a monad (T, µ, η) over C that comes additionally equipped with coherence morphisms 2 {dstr X,Y : T X T Y T (X Y )} X,Y C that are natural in both X and Y and are compatible with the structure of T and C in the sense that the following equalities are satisfied for every X, Y, and Z in C: dstr X,Y (µ X µ Y ) = µ X Y T (dstr X,Y ) dstr T X,T Y (η X η Y ) dstr X,Y = η X Y T (α X,Y,Z ) dstr X Y,Z (dstr X,Y id Z ) = dstr X,Y Z (id X dstr Y,Z ) α T X,T Y,T Z T ρ X dstr X,I (id T X η I ) T λ X dstr I,X (η I id T X ). Assume that the monoidal structure (C,, I) is additionally symmetric and write γ for its symmetry natural isomorphism. A monoidal monad (T, µ, η, dstr) is called symmetric provided its structure is compatible with the symmetry γ i.e., that T (γ X,Y ) dstr X,Y = dstr Y,X γ T X,T Y holds for every X and Y in C. Kleisli categories of (symmetric) monoidal monads have a canonical (symmetric) monoidal structure, induced by the monoidal structure of the monad and such that the canonical adjunction is a monoidal adjunction with respect 2 In the context of strong monads and functors the natural transformation dstr above is called Kleisli or double strength hence the notation.

6 6 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI to this structure. For (T, µ, η, dstr) a strong commutative monad over (C,, I), define ( ): Kl(T ) Kl(T ) Kl(T ) as (X X ), on each pair of objects X and X, and as f f = dstr Y,Y (f f ), on each pair of morphisms f : X Y and f : X Y. This functor forms, together with the unit I of, a (symmetric) monoidal structure on the Kleisli category of T. A monad (T, µ, η) over C equipped with a monoidal structure (C,, I) is called (left) strong if it is equipped with a family of morphisms {lstr X,Y : X T Y T (X Y )} X,Y C. called (tensorial) left strength, natural in both components and coherent with the structure of monads and with that of monoidal categories in the sense that the equalities below hold for any X, Y, and Z in C: µ X Y T (lstr X,Y ) lstr X,T Y = lstr X,Y (id X µ Y ) η X Y = lstr X,Y (id X η Y ) λ T X = T (λ X ) lstr I,X T (α X,Y,Z ) lstr X Y,Z = lstr X,Y Z (id X lstr Y,Z ) α X,Y,T Z. Symmetrically, a right strength for a monad is family {rstr X,Y : T X Y T (X Y )} X,Y C natural in both X and Y and coherent with the structure of T and C. Every monoidal monad is equipped with left and right strengths derived from its double strength as follows: lstr X,Y = dstr X,Y (η X id T Y ) rstr X,Y = dstr X,Y (id T X η Y ). If the structure on C has symmetry (write γ as above) then, every left strong monad over C is canonically equipped with a right strength given on each component as rstr X,Y = T γ Y,X lstr Y,X γ T X,Y and vice versa. In general, a monad over a symmetric monoidal category is called commutative whenever it is equipped with left and right strengths that satisfy the following property X and Y in C: µ X Y T (lstr X,Y ) rstr X,T Y = µ X Y T (rstr X,Y ) lstr T X,Y. Every strong commutative and symmetric monoidal monads coincides as left and right strengths induce the following double strength: dstr X,Y = µ X Y T (lstr X,Y ) rstr X,T Y = µ X Y T (rstr X,Y ) lstr T X,Y. We refer the reader to [26, 27] for further details on strong commutative monads Non-deterministic systems. The first example we discuss is the powerset monad P. The powerset functor P carries a monad structure (P, µ, η) whose multiplication and unit have as component at X the functions: µ X (Y ) = Y and η X (x) = {x}. When the cartesian structure (Set,, 1) is considered, the powerset monad is strong and commutative [19, 26, 27]; the components of its strength, costrength, and double strength are: lstr X,Y ( x, Y ) = {x} Y rstr X,Y ( X, y ) = X {y} dstr X,Y ( X, Y ) = X Y.

7 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 7 The Kleisli category of P consists of sets as objects and maps of the form X PY as morphisms between X and Y. Composition in this category is given, for each f and g with compatible types, as: g f(x) = g(f(x)) = {z z g(y) and y f(x)} where the underlying functions in Set have type f : X PY and g : Y PZ, and g f : X PZ. The tensor of the symmetric monoidal structure (Kl(P),, 1) takes every pair of morphisms f : X Y and f : X Y to the arrow (f f )(x, x ) = {(y, y ) y f(x), y f (x )}. The category Kl(P) is isomorphic to the category Rel of sets and relations under relation composition. In this sense, morphisms in Kl(P) are understood as non-deterministic computations for they associate states (elements in their domain) with a non-deterministic outcome (subsets in their codomain) Quantalic systems. Let (Q,, 1, ) be a unital quantale, i.e. a relational structure with the property that: (Q,, 1) is a monoid, (Q, ) is a complete lattice, arbitrary suprema are preserved by the monoid multiplication. Reworded, a unital quantale is a monoid in the category Sup of join-preserving homomorphisms between complete join semi-lattices. In the sequel we will often write Q or simply for the supremum of the empty set and denote a quantale (Q,, 1, ) by its carrier set Q, provided the associated structure is clear from the context. An arbitrary unital quantale Q gives rise to the monad Q ( ) over Set, called quantalic monad. The functor carrying this monad which assigns to any set X the set Q X of all functions from X to Q and to any map f : X Y the map Q f : Q X Q Y given by: Q f (φ)(y) = φ(x). x:f(x)=y Multiplication µ and unit η of Q ( ) are given on each set X by the functions: µ X (ψ)(x) = { 1 if x = y φ(x) ψ(φ) and η X (x)(y) = otherwise. The quantalic monad can be equipped with left, right double strengths for the structure (Set,, 1); these are given on each component as follows: lstr X,Y (x, φ)(x, y ) = η X (x)(x ) φ(y ) rstr X,Y (ψ, y)(x, y ) = ψ(x ) η Y (y)(y ) dstr X,Y (ψ, φ)(x, y) = ψ(x) φ(y). The quantalic monad is thus strong and monoidal but not necessary commutative as the latter requires the monoidal substructure of the quantale Q to be also commutative. Composition in Kl(Q ( ) ) is defined, for any f and g with suitable domain and codomain, as: (g f)(x)(z) = y f(x)(y) g(y)(z).

8 8 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI The tensor of the monoidal structure (Kl(Q ( ) ),, 1) takes every pair of morphisms f : X Y and f : X Y to the arrow given by the function: (f f )(x, x )(y, y ) = f(x)(y) f (x )(y ). The category Kl(Q ( ) ) is isomorphic to the category Mat(Q) of Q-valued matrices [39]. In this sense, Rel is a special case of the above where the chosen unital quantale is the boolean one. Another example of quantale is the set of all languages for a given alphabet Σ equipped with the pointwise extension of string concatenation as the monoidal structure and set inclusion as the order. This example generalises from free monoids to arbitrary ordered monoids: for (M,, e) a monoid equipped with an order that is preserved by, the set P M of downward closed subsets of M carries a unital quantale structure (P M,, 1, ) where 1 is the downward cone with cusp e: 1 = {m M m e} and is the downward closure of the pointwise extension of to subsets of M: X Y = {m x X, y Y (m x y)}. Positive arithmetic monoids such as natural and real numbers under addition are source of examples of interest for modelling computations with quantitative aspects. For instance, consider (N, +, 0) equipped with the natural order. Because the order is total and has 0 as its lest element, P N is isomorphic to N + { }; the resulting quantale structure is that of natural numbers with addition and the natural order extended with infinity Segala systems. Segala systems are systems whose computations express a combination of non-deterministic and probabilistic aspects. These systems are often referred to as simply probabilistic of named after Segala who pioneered their study [42]. Setting aside for a moment inputs, acceptance, and other aspects typical of automata and focusing on the branching type of Segala systems, the computations expressed by these systems can be ascribed to the functor PD where D is the probability distribution monad. Despite the fact both functors carry monad structures, their composite does not fails to be a proper monad [20, 49]. In order to compose single steps of these machines into sequences and computations, Segala introduced the notion of combined step where non-determinism is restricted to those subsets that are closed under convex combinations hence the term convex semantics (of Segala sytems). This semantics is captured by the convex combination monad 3 [10, 15, 20, 49]. By [0, ) we denote the semiring ([0, ), +, 0,, 1) of non-negative real numbers with ordinary addition and multiplication. By a [0, )-semimodule we mean a commutative monoid with actions [0, ) ( ) ( ) satisfying axioms listed in e.g., [14]. For a set X and define MX as the set of finitely supported weight functions: MX {φ: X [0, ) supp(φ) is finite} 3 The convex combinations monad was first introduced in its full generality by Jacobs in [20] to study trace semantics for combined possibilistic and probabilistic systems. Independently, Brengos [10] and Goncharov and Pattinson [15] tweaked Jacobs construction slightly, so that the resulting monads are more suitable to model Segala systems and their weak bisimulations. Jacobs monad, Brengos monad and Goncharov and Pattinson s monad identify Kleisli categories that are DCpo-enriched and whose hom-sets admit binary joins. For the purposes of this paper we take the convex combinations monad CM: Set Set to be that considered in [10, 8].

9 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 9 where supp(φ) is the support of φ: X [0, ) i.e., the set {x φ(x) 0} of elements assigned a non zero value by φ. We will often denote elements of MX using the formal sum notation: for φ MX we write x φ(x) x or, given supp(φ) = {x 1,..., x n }, simply i=1,...,n φ(x i) x i. Any function f : X Y induces the action Mf : MX MY defined as follows: M(f)(φ) = φ(x) f(x) = λy. φ(x) x f 1 (y) It is immediate to check that this data defines the (finite generalised) multiset functor. The set MX carries a monoid structure via pointwise operation of addition, and [0, )-action via (a φ)(x) a φ(x), which turn MX into a free semimodule over X (see e.g., [10, 14, 20] for details). For a non-empty subset U MX we define its convex closure as the set: { } n U = a 1 φ a n φ n φ i U, a i [0, ) such that a i = 1. Call a subset U MX convex provided U = U and put CMX = {U MX U is convex and non-empty}. Addition and [0, )-actions are extended to convex sets in a pointwise manner: for U, V MX both convex and a [0, ) we write U + V for the set {φ + ψ φ U, ψ V } and a U for the set {a φ φ U}. Every function f : X Y induces an action CM(f): CMX CMY given on each convex subset U of semimodules on X as follows: CM(f)(U) = {M(f)(φ) φ U}. The assignment CM: Set Set is a functor which carries a monadic structure [10] whose multiplication and unit have as component at X the functions: µ X (U) {φ(v ) ψ ψ V } and η X (x) {1 x}. φ U V CMX The convex combination monad is strong and commutative with respect to (Set,, 1); it is equipped with strength, costrength and double strength given on each component as: { } lstr X,Y (x, U) = φ(y) (x, y) φ U { } rstr X,Y (V, y) = ψ(x) (x, y) ψ V { } dstr X,Y (V, U) = (ψ(x) φ(y)) (x, y) ψ V, φ U. Composition in Kl(CM) is given, for each f and g with compatible domains and codomains as: (g f)(x) = {φ(y) ψ ψ g(y)} φ f(x) y supp(φ) where the underlying functions in Set have type f : X CM(Y ), g : Y CM(Z), and g f Kl(CM). The tensor of the symmetric monoidal structure (Kl(CM),, 1) takes every i=1

10 10 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI pair of morphisms f : X Y and f : X Y to the arrow {{ (f f )(x, x ) = (φ(y) φ (y )) (y, y ) φ U, φ U } } U f(x), U f (x ) Liftings to and monads over Kleisli categories. A Kleisli lifting of an endofunctor F over C is any endofunctor F over Kl(T ) that acts as F on (the image of) C i.e., any F such that the diagram below commute. F Kl(T ) Kl(T ) ( ) ( ) C F An endofunctor is said to lift whenever it admits a Kleisli lifting note that this may not be unique. As noted by Mulry in [36], Kleisli liftings of F are uniquely characterised by suitable natural transformations that distribute the monad T over the endofunctor F. A distributive law of (T, µ, η) over F is any natural transformation λ: F T T F compatible with the structure of T in the sense that it makes the diagram below commutes. λ T F T T T F T C T λ T T F F µ F T λ T F µ F η F F The lifting induced by a distributive law λ: F T T F takes every object X to F X and every morphism f : X Y to λ Y F f : F X T F Y. Conversely, the distributive law induced by a lifting F has, for every object X, the morphism F (id T X ) as its component at X. As a first example observe that every monad endomorphism 4 identifies a Kleisli lifting for the identity functor and for any constant endofunctor over C. These are in general not the identity and constant endofunctor over Kl(T ) which are identified precisely by the identity of (T, µ, η) and in this sense are termed canonical. Another class of examples is given by endofunctor colimits. Every endofunctors F that is a colimit of a diagram of endofunctors with a lifting to Kl(T ) has a Kleisli liftings and it is isomorphic to the colimit of the lifted diagram. In particular, for F and G Kleisli liftings of F and G, F + G is a lifting for F + G. Kleisli liftings obtained in this way are termed canonical whenever each component of their diagram is such. Tensor products of the monoidal structure induced by strong commutative monads on their Kleisli category (cf., Section 2.1) are actually Kleisli liftings 5 of the underlying tensor product. Kleisli liftings are closed under composition and 4 A monad morphism from (T, µ, η) to (S, ν, θ) is any natural transformation ρ: T S that is compatible with the structure of T and S in the sense that ρ η = θ and ρ µ = ν (ρ ρ) where and stand for vertical and horizontal composition, respectively. 5 The notion of Kleisli lifting readily generalises from functors to bifunctors in the obvious way: F is a Kleisli lifting of F : C C C to Kl(T ) provided that ( ) F = F (( ) ( ) ). F η

11 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 11 composites are termed canonical whenever their components are. In particular, for F and G Kleisli liftings of F and G, F G = F G is a lifting for F G. Whenever the lifting of a functor presents a monad structure in Kl(T ), say (S, ν, θ), we have the following two adjoint situations: ( ) ( ) C Kl(T ) Kl(S) U T The adjoint situation defined by their composition endows T S : C C with a monad structure whose multiplication and unit are defined as: U S µ S T µ S T 2 ν T λ S and θ. For any f : X Y and g : Y Z in Kl(T S) = Kl(S) their composite g f is given in C as: g f X f T SY T Sg (T S) 2 Z T λsz T 2 S 2 Z T 2 ν Z T 3 SZ T µsz T 2 SZ µsz T SZ In the remaining of the section we provide examples of monads over Kl(T ) that describe unobservable and accepting moves Unobservable and accepting moves. Originally [18, 44], computations with unobservable moves were introduced in the context of coalgebraic trace semantics as T (F + Id)- coalgebras for a monad T and an endofunctor F on C (e.g., P((A Id+Id) = P((A+{τ}) Id)). Intuitively, T, F, and Id describe the branching, observable, and unobservable computational aspects respectively with the monad defining how moves are concatenated. For many systems modelled by coalgebras in Set observables are actually given by a set of labels (or alphabet) Σ. In this case: T (F + Id) = T (Σ Id + Id) = T (Σ τ Id), where Σ τ is a shorthand for Σ + {τ}. However, this readily generalises to more complex notions of observables and beyond the category Set; e.g., the object of labels Σ may be a measurable space (cf., FlatCCS [3]) or a presheaf (cf., π-calculus [41]). The first author noted in [10] that, given some mild assumptions on T and F we may either introduce a monadic structure on a lifting F + Id of the functor F + Id to the Kleisli category Kl(T ) or embed the lifting F + Id into the monad F, where F denotes the free monad over the lifting F : Kl(T ) Kl(T ) of F. The monadic structure of (un)observables on Kl(T ) is composed with T (along the adjoint situation on C and Kl(T )) yielding a monadic structure on T (F + Id) and T F, respectively. As discussed at the beginning of this section, this results corroborates the view of unobservables as a computational effect and plays a fundamental rôle in our treatment of systems with unobservable moves: it allows us not to specify the invisible moves explicitly and let a monadic structure of the behavioural functor handle them internally. Instead of considering T (F + Id)-coalgebras we consider T -coalgebras for a monad T on an arbitrary category C.

12 12 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI The following result states that functors with unobservable moves (i.e., of the form of F + Id) extend to monads over Kl(T ) whenever the category has zero morphisms 6. Theorem 2.1 ([10]). Let F be a lifting of F to Kl(T ). If C has binary coproducts and Kl(T ) has zero morphisms then, the endofunctor F + Id over Kl(T ) carries a monad structure with multiplication [ ] ( ) ιl, id F +Id F [0, id] + idf +Id : (F + Id) 2 F + Id and unit ι r : Id F + Id where ι l and ι r are the left and right injections for coproduct F + Id = F + Id. In the sequel, we write T Σ T (Σ Id + Id) for the monad obtained equipping a strong monad T with Σ-labelled and unobservable moves. Accepting moves are modelled in the context of coalgebraic trace semantics as terminating moves since for several types of automata completed traces coincide with accepted words as illustrated e.g., by the isomorphism 2 P = P(Id + 1) between the behavioural endofunctors used to model non-deterministic automata [19]. Similar isomorphisms hold for quantalic, probabilistic, and weighted automata. Given an object 1 of C to denote termination 7, accepting moves are modelled by means of functors like T (Id + 1) where the monad T describes the branching aspect of the computation and Id + 1 provides the option of termination, herein acceptance. The functor Id + 1 carries a monad structure whose multiplication and unit have as component at X C the arrows [id X+1, ι r ]: (X + 1) + 1 X + 1 and ι l : X X + 1 where ι l and ι r are the left and right injection to the coproduct, respectively. As observed in Section 2.2, Id + 1 always has a canonical lifting to Kl(T ) given by the coproduct Id Kl(T ) + 1 and as such carries a monad structure defined as above. This situation endows the endofunctor T = T (Id + 1) over C with a monad structure 8 whose multiplication and unit have as component at X C the arrows µ X+1 T [id X+1, ι r ] and η X+1 ι l. In the sequel we write T for the monad obtained equipping T with accepting moves and T Σ whenever T is also equipped with Σ-labelled and unobservable moves. Both T and T Σ are submonads of T Σ Non-deterministic systems. Consider the monad P Σ obtained by equipping the powerset monad with labels and unobservable moves as described above. Coalgebras for the endofunctor endofunctor P(Σ τ Id) carrying this structure correspond to non-deterministic labelled transition systems with unobservable moves [40]. In this sense, we will refer to P Σ as the LTS monad. As observed e.g., in [10, 12], the monadic structure of P Σ allows to see these systems as endomorphisms and (self-)compose them while hiding unobservable moves into observable ones. In fact, the Kleisli category Kl(P Σ ) has sets as objects and maps 6 We say that a category has zero morphisms if for any two objects X, Y there is a morphism 0X,Y which is an annihilator w.r.t. composition, i.e.: f 0 = 0 = 0 g for any morphisms f, g with suitable domain and codomain. 7 Although we write 1 for adherence with examples and existing conventions, this object is not assumed to be necessary final. 8 This structure is an instance of the error monad transformer where the object of errors is 1 [34, 35].

13 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 13 X P(Σ τ Y ) as morphisms from X to Y. For f : X P Σ (Y ) and g : Y P Σ (Z) the composite g f Kl(P Σ ) is (g f)(x) = {(σ, z) (σ 1, y) f(x), (σ 2, z) g(y), and {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}} or, using a more evocative notation, { } g f(x) = (σ, z) x σ f y τ g z or x τ f y σ g z, where x σ f y denotes (σ, y) f(x). This monad is strong and commutative with respect to the (symmetric) structure (Set,, 1) once equipped with the left, right, and double strengths given by the following components: lstr X,Y (x, V ) = {(σ, x, y) (σ, y) V } rstr X,Y (U, y) = {(σ, x, y) (σ, x) U} dstr X,Y (U, V ) = {(σ, x, y) (σ 1, x) U, (σ 2, y) V, and {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}}. The symmetric monoidal structure (Set,, 1) lifts to the Kleisli category of the LTS monad as the structure (Kl(P Σ ),, 1). The tensor of this structure takes every pair of sets X and Y to their cartesian product X Y and every pair of morphisms f 1 : X 1 Y 1 and f 2 : X 2 Y 2 to the arrow given by the function: (f 1 f 2 )(x 1, x 2 ) = { (σ, y, y ) (σ 1, y 1 ) f 1 (x 1 ), (σ 2, y 2 ) f 2 (x 2 ), and {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ} }. Consider the monad P Σ = P(Σ τ Id+{ }) obtained by equipping the LTS monad with accepting moves. This monad captures non-deterministic automata with ε-moves (or ε-na in short) in the following sense. Coalgebras for its endofunctor are ε-na (accepting states are taken to sets containing the distinguished element ). In this sense, we will refer to P Σ as the ε-na monad. Endomorphisms in its Kleisli category are ε-nas, and composition combines unobservable moves as above while preserving acceptance [10, Example 4.5] (here and in loc. cit., the label ε is represented by the label τ and accepting moves end in ). In particular, composition in for f : X P Σ(Y ) and g : Y PΣ (Z) the composite g f in Kl(P Σ ) takes every x X to the set: { } (σ, z) x σ f y τ g z or x τ f y σ g z { } f(x) or x τ f y and g(y). This monad is strong and symmetric monoidal with respect to (Set,, 1) once equipped with the left, right, and double strengths given by the following components: lstr X,Y (x, V ) = {(σ, x, y) (σ, y) V } { V } rstr X,Y (U, y) = {(σ, x, y) (σ, x) U} { U} dstr X,Y (U, V ) = {(σ, x, y) (σ 1, x) U, (σ 2, y) V, and {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}} { U V }. The symmetric monoidal structure on Kl(P Σ ) defined above (hence (Set,, 1)) lifts to a symmetric monoidal structure on Kl(P Σ ) whose unit is 1 and whose tensor product is takes every pair of morphisms f 1 : X 1 Y 1 and f 2 : X 2 Y 2 to the arrow given by the function: (f 1 f 2 )(x 1, x 2 ) = { (σ, y, y ) (σ 1, y 1 ) f 1 (x 1 ), (σ 2, y 2 ) f 2 (x 2 ), and {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ} } { f 1 (x 1 ) f 2 (x 2 )}.

14 14 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI Quantalic systems. Consider the monad Q ( )Σ (carried by Q (Στ Id) ) obtained equipping the quantale monad with labelled and unobservable moves as described above. We will refer to this monad as the quantalic system monad since coalgebras for its endofunctor Q (Στ Id) are quantalic labelled transition systems with unobservable moves. These systems are endomorphisms of the Kleisli category of Q ( )Σ. In particular, composition in Kl(Q ( )Σ ) assigns to every f : X Y and g : Y Z the composite map: (g f)(x)(σ, z) = {f(x)(σ 1, y) g(y)(σ 2, z) {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ} and y Y }. The monad Q ( )Σ is strong and monoidal once equipped with the following left, right, and double strengths: lstr X,Y (x, φ)(σ, x, y ) = η X (x)(τ, x ) φ(σ, y ) lstr X,Y (ψ, y)(σ, x, y ) = ψ(σ, x ) η Y (y)(τ, y ) dstr X,Y (ψ, φ)(σ, x, y) = {ψ(σ 1, x) φ(σ 2, y) {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}}. Additionally, it is symmetric whenever the monoidal substructure of the underlying quantale Q is commutative. The tensor of the resulting monoidal structure on Kl(Q ( )Σ ) takes every pair of sets X and Y to their cartesian product X Y and every pair of morphisms f 1 : X 1 Y 1 and f 2 : X 2 Y 2 to the arrow given by the function: (f 1 f 2 )(x 1, x 2 )(σ, y 1, y 2 ) = {f 1 (x 1 )(σ 1, y 1 ) f 2 (x 2 )(σ 2, y 2 ) {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}}. Consider the monad Q ( )Σ (carried by Q (Στ Id+{ }) ) obtained equipping the quantale monad with labelled, unobservable moves and accepting as described above. We will refer to (Στ this monad as the quantalic automata monad since coalgebras for its endofunctor Q Id) are quantalic automata with ε-moves (we adopt the same notation used for ε-na and P Σ ). Composition in the Kleisli category for this monad assigns to every f : X Y and g : Y Z the composite map: {f(x)( ), f(x)(τ, y) g(y)( ) y Y } if w = (g f)(x)(w) = {f(x)(σ1, y) g(y)(σ 2, z) {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ} and y Y } if w = (σ, z) The monad Q ( )Σ is strong and monoidal once equipped with the following left, right, and double strengths: φ( ) if w = lstr X,Y (x, φ)(w) = φ(σ, y ) if w = (σ, x, y ) otherwise ψ( ) if w = rstr X,Y (ψ, y)(w) = ψ(σ, x ) if w = (σ, x, y) otherwise { ψ( ) φ( ) if w = dstr X,Y (ψ, φ)(w) = {ψ(σ1, x) φ(σ 2, y) {σ 1, σ 2 } = {σ, τ}} if w = (σ, x, y) Additionally, it is symmetric whenever the monoidal substructure of the underlying quantale Q is commutative. The tensor of the resulting monoidal structure on Kl(Q ( )Σ ) takes

15 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 15 every pair of sets X and Y to their cartesian product X Y and every pair of morphisms f 1 : X 1 Y 1 and f 2 : X 2 Y 2 to the arrow given by the function: { f1 (x 1 )( ) f 2 (x 2 )( ) if w = (f 1 f 2 )(x 1, x 2 )(w) = {f1 (x 1 )(σ 1, y 1 )f 2 (x 2 )(σ 2, y 2 ) {σ 1, σ 2 }={σ, τ}} if w =(σ, y 1, y 2 ) Segala systems. Akin to P Σ and P Σ, we extend CM with unobservable moves and acceptance via the general construction introduced in [10] and introduce the Segala systems monad CM Σ and the Segala automata monad CM Σ over the endofunctors CM(Σ τ Id) and CM(Σ τ Id + { }), respectively. Since we are interested in the Kleisli categories of these monads, we omit an explicit derivation of their structure and instead we describe directly Kl(CM Σ ) and Kl(CM Σ ). The Kleisli category Kl(CMΣ ) has sets as objects and maps X CM(Σ τ Y ) as morphisms from X to Y. For f : X CM Σ (Y ) and g : Y CM Σ (Z) the composite g f Kl(CM Σ ) is the map: (g f)(x) = {φ(τ, y) ψ ψ g(y)} + y Y φ f(x) { n φ(σ, y) r i (σ, z i ) σ j = τ j n σ Σ, y Y i=1 = φ(σ 1, y) ψ y (σ 2, z) (σ, z) z Z,σ Σ τ y Y, {σ 1,σ 2 }={σ,τ} n+m j=1 r j (σ j, z j ) g(y) such that φ f(x), {ψ y } y supp(φ), ψ y g(y) The above Kleisli category (see [10] for a discussion) lets us consider Segala systems with unobservable moves as endomorphisms and allows their mutual composition. Likewise, the Kleisli category Kl(CM Σ ) has sets as objects and maps X CM(Σ τ Y + { }) as morphisms from X to Y. For f : X CM Σ (Y ) and g : Y CMΣ (Z) the composite g f Kl(CM Σ ) is the map: (g f)(x) = {φ( ) } + {φ(τ, y) ψ ψ g(y)} + y Y φ f(x) } { n } n+m φ(σ, y) r i (σ, z i ) j=1 r j (σ j, z j ) g(y) such that σ i = τ i n y Y, σ Σ i=1 = φ(σ 1, y) ψ y (σ 2, z) (σ, z) + z Z, σ Σ τ y Y, {σ 1,σ 2 }={σ,τ} φ( ) + φ(τ, y) ψ y ( ) φ f(x), y Y {ψ y g(y)} y supp(φ). Akin to how endomorphisms in Kl(P Σ ) model non-deterministic automata, endomorphisms in Kl(CM Σ ) are a model for Segala automata since CMΣ extends CMΣ with acceptance mimicking the situation of P Σ and PΣ..

16 16 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI 3. Special saturation and behavioural equivalences Weak behavioural equivalences such as weak bisimulation for LTSs [32] are behavioural equivalences that abstract over unobservable moves by combining them with other observable or unobservable moves e.g., as described by Milner s well-known double arrow construction or the derivation rules in (2.1). Since [8], saturation has been extended to any type of system that can be modelled as an endomorphism of a Kleisli category (i.e., a coalgebra for a monad) provided certain 2-categorical constructions are admissible. For the aims of this work, order enriched categories will suffice. The purpose of this section is twofold. First of all we present basic definitions and properties from order enriched categories that will be used in the remainder of the paper. Secondly, we give a brief introduction to the concept of saturation-based behavioural equivalence we introduced in earlier work [8, 10, 12]. In Section 5.2 we generalise these constructions to systems whose computation may depend on aspects of the context such as time-flow. To avoid ambiguity, we shall refer to saturation as per loc. cit. as special saturation Order enriched categories. An order enriched category is a category whose homobjects are additionally equipped with a partial order structure and whose composition preserves said structure in the following sense: f f = g f g f f h f h. In this paper, the ordering will naturally stem from the type of computational effects under scrutiny and correspond to a notion of simulation between systems. For instance, in the case of non-deterministic systems, the ordering is given by pointwise extension of the inclusion order defined by P. In this setting, adding transitions to a system respects said ordering. Examples considered in this paper are categories with a stronger type of enrichment, e.g., we will often assume that our categories admit arbitrary non-empty joins. It is worth noting that in this case morphism composition does not necessarily preserve joins. For some results, we will require non-empty joins to be preserved by composition with morphisms from a given subcategory. Our prototypical scenario is a Kleisli category and its underlying category. Definition 3.1. Let K be order enriched and let J : J K exhibit J as a subcategory of K. The category K is called J-right distributive provided that it the following holds for any non-empty family of morphisms {g i } i I and any morphism f J with suitable domain and codomain: ( ) g i f = g i f. (J-RD) i i The category K is called J-left distributive provided that it the following holds for any non-empty family of morphisms {g i } i I and any morphism f J with suitable domain and codomain: ( ) f g i = f g i. (J-LD) i i Kleisli categories of extensions of T with unobservable or accepting moves inherit the enrichment of Kl(T ) since Kl(T Σ )(X, Y ) = Kl(T )(X, Σ Y + Y ), and Kl(T )(X, Y ) =

17 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 17 Kl(T )(X, Y +1) for any X and Y. Under mild conditions met by all examples in this paper, they also inherit distributivity. Theorem 3.2. If Kl(T ) is J-left (resp. J-right) distributive and suprema of non-empty families are preserved by and + then, so are Kl(T Σ ) and Kl(T ) (where J is composed with the opportune canonical inclusion from Kl(T )). Proof. See [12, Thm. 2.12]. Objects in the image of the powerset monad P are naturally endowed with an order structure given by subset inclusion. This order structure is extended to hom-sets of Kl(P) in a pointwise manner. Formally, the order structure of any hom-set Kl(P)(X, Y ) is given on any f and g as: f g xf(x) g(x) and suprema of any non-empty family {f i } i I as: f i (x). i I f i λx. i I Composition in Kl(P) is monotonous and preserves suprema of non-empty families (see e.g., [11, 12]). As a consequence Kl(P) is J-distributive for any J that exhibits any of its wide subcategories. Categories Kl(P Σ ), Kl(P ), and Kl(P Σ ) are similarly enriched and distributivity laws follow from Theorem 3.2. Objects in the image of the quantale monad Q ( ) are naturally endowed with an order structure given by the pointwise extension of the quantale order to functions. The ordering structure of any hom-set Kl(Q ( ) )(X, Y ) is defined by pointwise extension of the ordering on functions in Q Y. In particular, for f and g in Kl(Q ( ) )(X, Y ) define f g x yf(x)(y) g(x)(y) and for {f i } i I in Kl(Q ( ) )(X, Y ) with I define: f i (x)(y). i I f i λx.λy. i I It follows from composition in Kl(Q ( ) ) being multplication of Q-valued matrices [39], that Kl(Q ( ) ) is J-distributive for any J that exhibits a wide subcategory of Kl(Q ( ) ). Categories Kl(Q ( )Σ ), Kl(Q ( ) ), and Kl(Q ( )Σ ) are similarly enriched and distributivity laws follow from Theorem 3.2. Objects in the image of the monad Kl(CM) are naturally endowed with an order structure given by inclusion of convex sets. This order structure is extended to hom-sets of Kl(CM) in a pointwise manner. Formally, the order structure of any hom-set Kl(CM)(X, Y ) is given on any f and g as: f g xf(x) g(x) and suprema of any non-empty family {f i } i I as: f i (x). i I f i λx. i I Composition in Kl(CM) is monotonous and preserves suprema of non-empty families (see e.g., [11, 12]). As a consequence Kl(CM) is J-distributive for any J that exhibits any of its

18 18 T. BRENGOS AND M. PERESSOTTI wide subcategories. Categories Kl(CM Σ ), Kl(CM ), and Kl(CM Σ ) are similarly enriched and distributivity laws follow from Theorem Behavioural equivalences. The notion of strong bisimulation has been well captured coalgebraically [40, 47]. Weak bisimulation is captured coalgebraically as the combination of kernel bisimulation and saturation [12]. We briefly recall the relevant definitions and refer the interested reader to loc. cit. for further details. Following on [12], we consider a formulation of coalgebraic bisimulation called kernel bisimulation i.e., a relation which is the kernel of a compatible refinement system [47]. Formally, a kernel bisimulation (herein just bisimulation) for a coalgebra α: X T X is a relation R X (i.e., a jointly monic span) in C provided that there is a coalgebra β : Y T Y (the refinement system) and an arrow f : X Y (called behavioural morphism) for which R X is the kernel pair in C and subject to the coalgebra homomorphism compatibility condition: T f α = β f. Since this identity can be restated in terms of composition in Kl(T ) as f α = β f, we can generalize the definition of bisimulation to the setting of endomorphisms as follows. Let J : J K exhibit a wide 9 subcategory of K. For an endomorphism α: X X K we say that a relation on X in J is a (strong) bisimulation on α if it is a kernel pair of an arrow f : X Y J for which there is β : Y Y K satisfying J(f) α = β J(f). If we take the canonical inclusion C Kl(T ) as J then the notions of kernel bisimulation and endomorphism bisimulation coincide. If we take the canonical inclusion Kl(T ) Kl(T Σ ) as J then the above captures trace equivalence. Taking the source category of behavioural morphisms to be different from Set is akin to the classical approach towards modelling coalgebraic finite trace equivalence in terms of bisimulation in the Kleisli categories for a monadic part of the type functor [19, 21]. In [8, 10, 12] we presented a common framework for defining weak bisimulation and weak trace semantics for coalgebras with internal moves which encompasses several well known instances of this notion for systems among which we find labelled transition systems and fully probabilistic systems. The basic ingredient of this setting was the notion of saturation for order enriched categories. Henceforth, assume that K is order enriched. An endomorphism α in K is called saturated whenever it holds that: id α α α α. Under mild conditions (see [12]), every endomorphism can be canonically saturated in the sense that assigning endomorphisms to their saturation identifies a reflection between certain categories of endomorphisms. Define End J (K) as the category whose objects are endomorphisms in K and whose morphisms are arrows in the subcategory J that form a lax commuting square between endomorphisms. Namely, a morphism from α: X X to β : Y Y is any morphism f such that: J(f) α β J(f). 9 A subcategory S of C is termed wide whenever it contains every object of C.

19 A UNIFORM FRAMEWORK FOR TIMED AUTOMATA AND BEYOND 19 Define End J (K) as the full subcategory of End J (K) of saturated endomorphisms. The category K is said to admit saturation (w.r.t. J) whenever it holds that: ( ) End J (K) End J (K) In this setting we refer to α as the saturation of α. A relation R X in J is a weak bisimulation on an endomorphism α: X X in K if it is a (strong) bisimulation on the saturation α : X X of α in K. As will be witnessed in sections to come, different weak equivalences for timed systems will be defined in an analogous manner. 4. From timed automata to timed computations Recall from [2] that a timed automaton (a.k.a. time transition table) over an alphabet Σ and with access to C-many clocks essentially consists of a set of locations L and labelled transitions between them. Labels have two components: (1) a symbol to be consumed or τ if no input is required; (2) a clock expression to describe preconditions on the clock state and actions to be performed on it (e.g., clock c is not 0 and will be reset). Example 4.1. For instance consider [2, Ex. 3.4] visualised below: σ; ; {c} l l c < 2; ; σ This automaton (on Σ = {σ, σ } and C = {c}) has two locations (l and l ) and two transitions between them, one for each direction. The transition from l to l consumes the symbol σ, has no precondition ( ), and resets clock c. The transition in the other direction consumes σ, requires that c has recorded less than 2 time units, and specifies no reset. Writing E for the set of all clock expressions, a time transition table can be regarded as a function L P(Σ τ E L) i.e., a morphism L E L in the Kleisli category for P Σ (or P Σ if acceptance is necessary). For instance, the automaton depicted above corresponds to the E Id-coalgebra taking l and l to the sets {(σ, (({c}, ), l ))} and {(σ, ((, c < 2), l))}, respectively. Definition 4.2. For E an object in a monoidal category (K,, I) a timed automaton with E-expressions is a (E Id)-coalgebra. Time flow is an aspect of the computational context: timed automata are affected by time but clearly cannot affect it. They experience time indirectly via clocks and can only interact with these devices via expressions. The semantics of these interactions is part of the timed automata and time model definition and it is specified by means of an object V of clocks configurations (e.g., the space of functions assigning to each clock its recorded time) together with: a morphism eval: V E V specifying the effect of expressions and