Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:24:22.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concurrency cannot be observed, asynchronously†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2014

PAOLO BALDAN ,
FILIPPO BONCHI ,
FABIO GADDUCCI  and
GIACOMA VALENTINA MONREALE
PAOLO BALDAN
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italia Email: [email protected]
FILIPPO BONCHI
Affiliation:
ENS Lyon, Université de Lyon, LIP (UMR 5668 CNRS ENS Lyon UCBL INRIA), Lyon, France Email: [email protected]
FABIO GADDUCCI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italia Email: [email protected]
GIACOMA VALENTINA MONREALE
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italia Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper is devoted to an analysis of the concurrent features of asynchronous systems. A preliminary step is represented by the introduction of a non-interleaving extension of barbed equivalence. This notion is then exploited in order to prove that concurrency cannot be observed through asynchronous interactions, i.e., that the interleaving and concurrent versions of a suitable asynchronous weak equivalence actually coincide. The theory is validated on some case studies, related to nominal calculi (π-calculus) and visual specification formalisms (Petri nets). Additionally, we prove that a class of systems which is deemed (output-buffered) asynchronous, according to a characterization that was previously proposed in the literature, falls into our theory.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4: APLAS 2010 , May 2015 , pp. 978 - 1004
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Supported by the MIUR project SisteR and the University of Padova project AVIAMO.

References

Agerwala, T. and Flynn, M. J. (1973) Comments on capabilities, limitations and ‘correctness’ of Petri nets. Computer Architecture News 4 (2)81–86.Google Scholar
Amadio, R. M., Castellani, I. and Sangiorgi, D. (1996) On bisimulations for the asynchronous π-calculus. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'96. Springer Lecture Notes In Computer science 1119 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldan, P., Bonchi, F. and Gadducci, F. (2009) Encoding asynchronous interactions using open Petri nets. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'09. Springer Lecture Notes In Computer Science 5710 99–114.Google Scholar
Baldan, P., Bonchi, F., Gadducci, F. and Monreale, G. V. (2010) Concurrency can't be observed, asynchronously. In: Proceeding of APLAS'10. Springer Lecture Notes In Computer Science 6461 424–438.Google Scholar
Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Ehrig, H. and Heckel, R. (2005) Compositional semantics for open Petri nets based on deterministic processes. Mathematical String in Computer Science 15 (1)1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauxis, R., Palamidessi, C. and Valencia, F. D. (2008) On the asynchronous nature of the asynchronous π-calculus. Concurrency, Graphs and Models, Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 5065 Springer 473–492.Google Scholar
Bergstra, J. A., Klop, J. W. and Tucker, J. V. (1984) Process algebra with asynchronous communication mechanisms. Seminar on Concurrency, Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 197 Springer 76–95.Google Scholar
Bonchi, F., Gadducci, F. and Monreale, G. V. (2010) On barbs and labels in reactive systems. In: Proceeding of SOS'09. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 18 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boreale, M. and Sangiorgi, D. (1998) Some congruence properties for π-calculus bisimilarities. Theoretical Computer Science 198 (1–2)159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudol, G. (1992) Asynchrony and the π-calculus. Technical Report 1702, INRIA.Google Scholar
Boudol, G., Castellani, I., Hennessy, M. and Kiehn, A. (1991) Observing localities. In: Proceeding of MFCS'91. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 520 93–102.Google Scholar
Bruni, R., Melgratti, H. C. and Montanari, U. (2006) Event structure semantics for dynamic graph grammars. In: Proceeding of PNGT'06. EASST 2.Google Scholar
Busi, N. and Gorrieri, R. (1995) A Petri net semantics for π-calculus. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'95. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 962 145–159.Google Scholar
Busi, N., Gorrieri, R. and Zavattaro, G. (2000) Comparing three semantics for linda-like languages. Theoretical Computer Science 240 (1)49–90.Google Scholar
Cardelli, L. and Gordon, A. D. (2000) Mobile ambients. Theoretical Computer Science 240 (1)177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crafa, S., Varacca, D. and Yoshida, N. (2007) Compositional event structure semantics for the internal π-calculus. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'07. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4703 317–332.Google Scholar
Darondeau, P. and Degano, P. (1989) Causal trees. In: Proceeding of ICALP'89. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 372 234–248.Google Scholar
de Boer, F.S., Klop, J. W. and Palamidessi, C. (1992) Asynchronous communication in process algebra. Proceeding of LICS'92, IEEE Computer Society 137–147.Google Scholar
Degano, P., Nicola, R. D. and Montanari, U. (1988) Partial orderings descriptions and observations of nondeterministic concurrent processes. In: Proceeding of REX Workshop. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 354 438–466.Google Scholar
Fournet, C. and Gonthier, G. (1996) The reflexive CHAM and the Join-calculus. Proceeding of POPL'96. ACM Press 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournet, C. and Gonthier, G. (2005) A hierarchy of equivalences for asynchronous calculi. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 63 (1)131–173.Google Scholar
Gorla, D. (2008) Towards a unified approach to encodability and separation results for process calculi. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'08. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5201 492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habel, A., Heckel, R. and Taentzer, G. (1996) Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundamenta Informaticae 26 (3/4)287–313.Google Scholar
Honda, K. and Tokoro, M. (1991) An object calculus for asynchronous communication. In: Proceeding of ECOOP'91. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 512 133–147.Google Scholar
Honda, K. and Yoshida, N. (1995) On reduction-based process semantics. Theoretical Computer Science 151 (2)437–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindler, E. (1997) A compositional partial order semantics for Petri net components. In: Proceeding of ATPN'97. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1248 235–252.Google Scholar
Lanese, I. (2007) Concurrent and located synchronizations in π-calculus. In: Proceeding of SOFSEM'07. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4362 388–399.Google Scholar
Leifer, J. J. and Milner, R. (2000) Deriving bisimulation congruences for reactive systems. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'00. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1877 243–258.Google Scholar
Merro, M. and Nardelli, F. Z. (2003) Bisimulation proof methods for mobile ambients. In: Proceeding of ICALP'03. Springer Lecture Notes In Computer Science 2719 584–598.Google Scholar
Milner, R. (1989) Communication and Concurrency, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Milner, R. (1999) Communicating and Mobile Systems: the π-Calculus, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, R. (2003) Bigraphs for Petri nets. In: Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3098 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, R. and Sangiorgi, D. (1992) Barbed bisimulation. In: Proceeding of ICALP'92. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 623 685–695.Google Scholar
Montanari, U. and Pistore, M. (1995) Concurrent semantics for the π-calculus. In: Proceeding of MFPS'95. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palamidessi, C. (2003) Comparing the expressive power of the synchronous and asynchronous π-calculi. Mathematical String in Computer Science 13 (5)685–719.Google Scholar
Phillips, I. (2008) CCS with priority guards. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 75 (1)139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathke, J., Sassone, V. and Sobociński, P. (2007) Semantic barbs and biorthogonality. In: Proceeding of FoSSaCS'07. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4423 302–316.Google Scholar
Sassone, V. and Sobociński, P. (2005) A congruence for Petri nets. Proceeding of PNGT'04. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127 107–120.Google Scholar
Selinger, P. (1997) First-order axioms for asynchrony. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'97. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1243 376–390.Google Scholar
van Glabbeek, R. J. (1990) The linear time-branching time spectrum. In: Proceeding of CONCUR'90. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 458 278–297.Google Scholar
van Glabbeek, R. J. and Goltz, U. (1989) Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. In: Proceeding of MFCS'89. Springer Lecture Notes in computer Science 379 237–248.Google Scholar
van Glabbeek, R. J., Goltz, U. and Schicke, J. W. (2009) Symmetric and asymmetric asynchronous interaction. In: Proceeding of ICE'08. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 229 (3)77–95.Google Scholar
van Glabbeek, R. J. and Vaandrager, F. W. (1987) Petri net models for algebraic theories of concurrency. In: Proceeding of PARLE'87. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 259 224–242.Google Scholar