Strong Bisimulation. Overview. References. Actions Labeled transition system Transition semantics Simulation Bisimulation

Similar documents
Summer School Verification Technology, Systems & Applications

Exercises with (Some) Solutions

Designing finite automata II

Minimal DFA. minimal DFA for L starting from any other

Theory of Computation Regular Languages. (NTU EE) Regular Languages Fall / 38

Convert the NFA into DFA

Finite Automata Theory and Formal Languages TMV027/DIT321 LP4 2018

Theory of Computation Regular Languages

Non-Deterministic Finite Automata. Fall 2018 Costas Busch - RPI 1

CMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation. Lecture #31: What DFA s Can and Can t Do David Mix Barrington 9 April 2014

a,b a 1 a 2 a 3 a,b 1 a,b a,b 2 3 a,b a,b a 2 a,b CS Determinisitic Finite Automata 1

1 Nondeterministic Finite Automata

Bisimulation. R.J. van Glabbeek

Handout: Natural deduction for first order logic

Bisimulation, Games & Hennessy Milner logic

Java II Finite Automata I

Finite Automata. Informatics 2A: Lecture 3. John Longley. 22 September School of Informatics University of Edinburgh

Worked out examples Finite Automata

Chapter Five: Nondeterministic Finite Automata. Formal Language, chapter 5, slide 1

Hennessy-Milner Logic 1.

Coalgebra, Lecture 15: Equations for Deterministic Automata

Nondeterminism. Nondeterministic Finite Automata. Example: Moves on a Chessboard. Nondeterminism (2) Example: Chessboard (2) Formal NFA

f(x) dx, If one of these two conditions is not met, we call the integral improper. Our usual definition for the value for the definite integral

First Midterm Examination

1. For each of the following theorems, give a two or three sentence sketch of how the proof goes or why it is not true.

Good-for-Games Automata versus Deterministic Automata.

Let's start with an example:

CS 267: Automated Verification. Lecture 8: Automata Theoretic Model Checking. Instructor: Tevfik Bultan

Finite Automata-cont d

Improper Integrals. Type I Improper Integrals How do we evaluate an integral such as

Intermediate Math Circles Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Finite Automata II. Nickolas Rollick a b b. a b 4

Graph Theory. Dr. Saad El-Zanati, Faculty Mentor Ryan Bunge Graduate Assistant Illinois State University REU. Graph Theory

NFAs and Regular Expressions. NFA-ε, continued. Recall. Last class: Today: Fun:

Anatomy of a Deterministic Finite Automaton. Deterministic Finite Automata. A machine so simple that you can understand it in less than one minute

Chapter 14. Matrix Representations of Linear Transformations

Automata and Languages

CSC 473 Automata, Grammars & Languages 11/9/10

1.4 Nonregular Languages

Grammar. Languages. Content 5/10/16. Automata and Languages. Regular Languages. Regular Languages

CS375: Logic and Theory of Computing

CSCI FOUNDATIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

AUTOMATA AND LANGUAGES. Definition 1.5: Finite Automaton

Finite Automata Part Three

This lecture covers Chapter 8 of HMU: Properties of CFLs

Lecture 08: Feb. 08, 2019

CS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 20: Complexity V (Polynomial-Time Reducibility)

CS 301. Lecture 04 Regular Expressions. Stephen Checkoway. January 29, 2018

CISC 4090 Theory of Computation

CS:4330 Theory of Computation Spring Regular Languages. Equivalences between Finite automata and REs. Haniel Barbosa

20 MATHEMATICS POLYNOMIALS

Infinite Geometric Series

More on automata. Michael George. March 24 April 7, 2014

Formal Languages and Automata

On Determinisation of History-Deterministic Automata.

Non Deterministic Automata. Linz: Nondeterministic Finite Accepters, page 51

Recursively Enumerable and Recursive. Languages

Riemann Sums and Riemann Integrals

Improper Integrals, and Differential Equations

Closure Properties of Regular Languages

Semantic reachability for simple process algebras. Richard Mayr. Abstract

Chapter 2 Finite Automata

Riemann Sums and Riemann Integrals

The Regulated and Riemann Integrals

New data structures to reduce data size and search time

Lecture 3: Equivalence Relations

Nondeterminism and Nodeterministic Automata

Finite Automata. Informatics 2A: Lecture 3. Mary Cryan. 21 September School of Informatics University of Edinburgh

CSE : Exam 3-ANSWERS, Spring 2011 Time: 50 minutes

State Minimization for DFAs

5. (±±) Λ = fw j w is string of even lengthg [ 00 = f11,00g 7. (11 [ 00)± Λ = fw j w egins with either 11 or 00g 8. (0 [ ffl)1 Λ = 01 Λ [ 1 Λ 9.

CSCI 340: Computational Models. Kleene s Theorem. Department of Computer Science

1.3 Regular Expressions

CS 275 Automata and Formal Language Theory

CS415 Compilers. Lexical Analysis and. These slides are based on slides copyrighted by Keith Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon at Rice University

Harvard University Computer Science 121 Midterm October 23, 2012

GNFA GNFA GNFA GNFA GNFA

Finite-State Automata: Recap

Quantum Nonlocality Pt. 2: No-Signaling and Local Hidden Variables May 1, / 16

Math 4310 Solutions to homework 1 Due 9/1/16

CS 275 Automata and Formal Language Theory

In words: Let be the relation on Z given by a b if a b. (Note that we use language like in definitions, where if actually means if and only if.

Math Lecture 23

Homework 3 Solutions

1 Online Learning and Regret Minimization

CS 373, Spring Solutions to Mock midterm 1 (Based on first midterm in CS 273, Fall 2008.)

CM10196 Topic 4: Functions and Relations

AQA Further Pure 1. Complex Numbers. Section 1: Introduction to Complex Numbers. The number system

Energy Bands Energy Bands and Band Gap. Phys463.nb Phenomenon

Module 9: Tries and String Matching

Module 9: Tries and String Matching

CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages. DFAs, and NFAs, and Regexps (Oh my!)

Section: Other Models of Turing Machines. Definition: Two automata are equivalent if they accept the same language.

CS103B Handout 18 Winter 2007 February 28, 2007 Finite Automata

Introduction to Group Theory

Reinforcement Learning

a b b a pop push read unread

THE EXISTENCE-UNIQUENESS THEOREM FOR FIRST-ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS.

How do we solve these things, especially when they get complicated? How do we know when a system has a solution, and when is it unique?

Myhill-Nerode Theorem

Categorical approaches to bisimilarity

Transcription:

Strong Bisimultion Overview Actions Lbeled trnsition system Trnsition semntics Simultion Bisimultion References Robin Milner, Communiction nd Concurrency Robin Milner, Communicting nd Mobil Systems 32

Actions nd Sttes Actions: We presuppose n infinite set N of nmes; we use, b, to rnge over N. Then we introduce the set N = { N }, which we cll co-nmes. We ssume tht N nd Nre disjoint, nd we denote their union N N, by L, the set of lbels (the kind of lbels, which identifies the buttons on our blck boxes). For the moment, the set L nd Σ coincide. Conceptul chnges: Wht mtters bout string s - sequence of ctions - is not whether it drives the utomton into n ccepting stte (since we cnnot detect this by interction) but whether the utomton is ble to perform the sequence of s interctively. A lbeled trnsition system cn be thought of s n utomton without strt or ccepting sttes. Any stte cn be considered s the strt. 33

Generl Automton,b,c b,c q3,b q0 q2 c b q1 c 34

Lbeled Trnsition System A lbeled trnsition system over ctions Σ is pir (Q, T ) consisting of: set Q = {q 0, q 1, } of sttes, ternry reltion T (Q Σ Q), known s trnsition reltion. If (q,, q ) T we write q q', nd we cll q the source nd q the trget of the trnsition. Alterntive definition: (S, T, { t : t T } ) S is set of sttes T is set of trnsition lbels t S S is trnsition reltion for ech t T. 35

LTS nd Automton An LTS cn be though of s n utomton without strt or ccepting sttes. By omitting the strt stte, we gin the freedom to consider ny stte s the strt. Ech selection of strt defines different utomton, but is bsed upon the sme LTS. 36

Strong Simultion - Ide In 1981 D. Prk proposed new pproch to define the equivlence of utomtons - bisimultion. Given lbeled trnsition system there exists stndrd definition of bisimultion equivlence tht cn be pplied to this lbeled trnsition system. The definition of bisimultion is given in coinductive style tht is, two systems re bisimulr if we cnnot show tht they re not. Informlly, to sy system S1 simultes system S2 mens tht S1 s observble behvior is t lest s rich s tht of S2. 37

Strong Simultion - Definition Let (Q, T ) be n lbeled trnsition system, nd let S be binry reltion over Q. Then S is clled strong simultion over (Q, T ) if, whenever p S q, If p α p' then there exists q Q such tht q α q' nd p S q. We sy tht q strongly simultes p if there exists strong simultion S such tht p S q. 38

Strong Simultion - Exmple S1: q0 S2: 25ct 25ct q1 p1 25ct te te q2 q4 p2 coffee q3 Clim: The sttes q0 nd p0 re different. Therefore, the systems S1 nd S2 should not be considered equivlent. p0 25ct p3 25ct p4 coffee p5 39

Defining S If we define S = {(p0, q0), (p1, q1), (p3, q1), (p2, q4), (p4, q2), (p5, q3)} then S is strong simultion; hence S1 strongly simultes S2. To verify this, for every pir (p, q) S we hve to consider ech trnsition of p, nd show tht it is properly mtched by some trnsition of q. However, there exists no strong simultion R tht contins the pir (q1, p1), becuse one of q1 s trnsition could never be mtched by p1. Therefore, the sttes q0 nd p0 re different, nd the systems S1 nd S2 re not considered to be equivlent. 40

Strong Bisimultion The converse R -1 of ny binry reltion R is the set of pirs (y, x) such tht (x, y) R. Let (Q, T ) be n lbeled trnsition system, nd let S be binry reltion over Q. Then S is clled strong bisimultion over (Q, T ) if both S nd its converse S -1 re strong simultions. We sy tht tht the sttes p nd q re strongly bisimulr or strongly equivlent, written p ~ q, if there exists strong bisimultion S such tht p S q. 41

Digrms The condition for S to be strong bisimultion cn be expressed in digrms: if p S q then for some q, q p p S q Thus q strongly simultes p, or p is strongly simulted by q, mens tht whtever trnsition pth p tkes, q cn mtch it by pth, which retins ll of p s options. 42

Bisimultion - Bord Gme Checking the equivlence of interctive systems cn be considered bord gme between two persons, the unbeliever, who thinks tht S1 nd S2 re not equivlent, nd the believer, who thinks tht S1 nd S2 re equivlent. The underlying strtegy of this gme is tht the (demonic) unbeliever is trying to perform trnsitions, which the cnnot be mtched by the (ngelic) believer. The unbeliever loses if there re no trnsitions left for either systems, wheres the believer loses, if he cnnot mtch move mde by the unbeliever. 43

Working With Simultions Wht do we do with (bi)simultions? Exhibiting (bi)simultion: guessing reltion S tht contins (p,q) Checking (bi)simultion: checking tht given reltion S is in fct (bi)simultion There exist lgorithms nd tools (e.g. CWB) tht cn generte reltions tht by construction stisfy the property of being (bi)simultion. Results on (semi-)decidbility re very importnt for such tools. 44

Checking Bisimultion S1: p1 b p2 S1 ~ S2? To construct S strt with (p0, q0) nd check whether S2 cn mtch ll trnsitions of S1: S = { (p0, q0), (p1, q1), (p3, q1), (p2, q2), (p4, q3) } p0 p3 c p4 System S2 cn simulte system S1. Now check, whether S -1 is simultion or not: S -1 = { (q0, p0), (q1, p1), (q1, p3), (q2, p2), (q3, p4) } q0 S2: q1 b c q2 q3 Strt with (q0, p0) S -1. 1: q0 hs one trnsition tht cn be mtched by two trnsitions of S1 (trget p1 nd p3, respectively) nd we hve (q1, p1) S -1 nd (q1, p3) S -1. 2: q1 hs two trnsitions b nd c, which, however, cnnot be ppropritely mtched by the relted sttes p1 nd p3 of system S1 (p1 hs only b trnsition whilst p3 hs only c trnsition). We hve, therefore, S1 ~ / S2. 45

Linking Sttes b p0 b p1 p2 q0 q2 b q1 S = {(p0,q0), (p0,q2), (p1,q1), (p2,q1)} 46

~ is n Equivlence Reltion p ~ p p ~ q implies q ~ p p ~ q nd q ~ r imply p ~ r 47

Reflexivity Let Q be process nd Id Q = {(p,p) p Q}. For reflexivity, it is enough to show tht Id Q is bisimultion. Proof: Suppose Id Q = {(p,p) p Q}. We hve to show tht for ll (p,p) Id Q, if p p' α, then there exists q such tht p α q' nd (p,q ) Id Q. Now, let p Id Q p, if p p' α, then we hve to find stte q Q such tht p q' α nd p Id Q q. By ssumption, p Q, we tke q = p, hence p α p', nd by definition of Id Q, we hve p Id Q p, s required. Finlly, since Id Q = Id Q -1, Id Q is bisimultion. q.e.d. 48

Symmetry For symmetry, we hve to show tht if S is bisimultion then so is its converse S -1. However, this is obvious from the definition of bisimultion. 49

Trnsitivity S 1 S 2 = {(p, r) q exists with (p, q) S 1 nd (q, r) S 2 } Proof: Let (p, r) S 1 S 2. Then there exists q with (p, q) S 1 nd (q, r) S 2. ( ) If p α p', then since (p, q) S 1 there exists q nd q α q' nd (p, q ) S 1. Furthermore, since (q, r) S 2 there exists r with r α r' nd (q, r ) S 2. Due to the definition of S 1 S 2 it holds tht (p, r ) S 1 S 2 s required. ( ) similr to ( ). 50

Fct ~ is the lrgest strong bisimultion, tht is, ~ is strong bisimultion nd includes ny other such. Assume tht ech S i (i=1,2, ) is strong bisimultion. Then U S is strong bisimultion. i I i Let ech S i (i=1,2, ) be strong bisimultion. We hve to show tht U S is strong bisimultion. i I i Let (p,q) U S i I i. If p α p', then since (p,q) S i, 1 i n, there exists q S i with q α q' nd (p,q ) S i nd (p,q ) U S. By symmetry, the converse holds s well. i I i 51

Bisimultion - Summry Bisimultion is n equivlence reltion defined over lbeled trnsition system, which respects non-determinism. The bisimultion technique cn be used to compre the observble behvior of intercting systems. Note: Strong bisimultion does not cover unobservble behvior, which is present in systems tht hve opertors to define rection (tht is, internl ctions). 52