Model Checking Mobile Processes

We introduce a temporal logic for the polyadic?-calculus based on fixed point extensions of Hennessy?Milner logic. Features are added to account for parametrisation, generation, and passing of names, including the use, following Milner, of dependent sum and product to account for (unlocalised) input and output, and explicit parametrisation on names using?-abstraction and application. The latter provides a single name binding mechanism supporting all parametrisation needed. A proof system and decision procedure is developed based on Stirling and Walker's approach to model checking the modal?-calculus using constants. One difficulty, for both conceptual and efficiency-based reasons, is to avoid the explicit use of the?-rule for parametrised processes. A key idea, following Hennessy and Lin's approach to deciding bisimulation for certain types of value-passing processes, is the relativisation of correctness assertions to conditions on names. Based on this idea, a proof system and a decision procedure are obtained for arbitrary?-calculus processes with finite control,?-calculus correlates of CCS finite-state processes, avoiding the use of parallel composition in recursively defined processes.

[1]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal Logics for Communicating Systems , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  From pi-Calculus to Higher-Order pi-Calculus - and Back , 1993, TAPSOFT.

[3]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  An Automata Theoretic Decision Procedure for the Propositional Mu-Calculus , 1989, Inf. Comput..

[4]  David Walker,et al.  Local Model Checking in the Modal mu-Calculus , 1991, Theoretical Computer Science.

[5]  Rance Cleaveland,et al.  Computing Behavioural Relations, Logically , 1991, ICALP.

[6]  Bengt Jonsson,et al.  Deciding Bisimulation Equivalences for a Class of Non-Finite-State Programs , 1989, Inf. Comput..

[7]  Robin Milner,et al.  Functions as processes , 1990, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[8]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[9]  Matthew Hennessy,et al.  A Modal Logic for Message passing Processes (Extended Abstract) , 1993, CAV.

[10]  Robin Milner,et al.  Modal Logics for Mobile Processes , 1991, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Rance Cleaveland,et al.  The concurrency workbench: a semantics-based tool for the verification of concurrent systems , 1993, TOPL.

[12]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Compositional checking of satisfaction , 1991, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[13]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Mobile Processes, II , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[14]  David Michael Ritchie Park.  Finiteness is Mu-Ineffable , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal and Temporal Logics for Processes , 1996, Banff Higher Order Workshop.

[16]  Mads Dam.  CTL* and ECTL* as Fragments of the Modal mu-Calculus , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Proof System for Hennessy-Milner Logic with Recursion , 1988, CAAP.

[18]  Matthew Hennessy,et al.  Symbolic Bisimulations , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Mobile Processes, II , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[20]  Robin Milner,et al.  The Polyadic π-Calculus: a Tutorial , 1993 .