Rooted branching bisimulation as a congruence for probabilistic transition systems

We propose a probabilistic transition system specification format, referred to as probabilistic RBB safe, for which rooted branching bisimulation is a congruence. The congruence theorem is based on the approach of Fokkink for the qualitative case. For this to work, the theory of transition system specifications in the setting of labeled transition systems needs to be extended to deal with probability distributions, both syntactically and semantically. We provide a scheduler-free characterization of probabilistic branching bisimulation as adapted from work of Andova et al. for the alternating model. Counter examples are given to justify the various conditions required by the format.

[1]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications , 1991, JACM.

[2]  Bard Bloom,et al.  Structural Operational Semantics for Weak Bisimulations , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Simone Tini,et al.  A Specification Format for Rooted Branching Bisimulation , 2014, Fundam. Informaticae.

[4]  Hans A. Hansson Time and probability in formal design of distributed systems , 1991, DoCS.

[5]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  SOS formats and meta-theory: 20 years after , 2007, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  Structured Operational Semantics and Bisimulation as a Congruence , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[7]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  Structural operational semantics for stochastic and weighted transition systems , 2013, Inf. Comput..

[8]  Matias David Lee,et al.  Probabilistic Transition System Specification: Congruence and Full Abstraction of Bisimulation , 2012, FoSSaCS.

[9]  Marino Miculan,et al.  GSOS for non-deterministic processes with quantitative aspects , 2014, QAPL.

[10]  Matias David Lee,et al.  Axiomatizing Bisimulation Equivalences and Metrics from Probabilistic SOS Rules , 2014, FoSSaCS.

[11]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  On cool congruence formats for weak bisimulations , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Simone Tini,et al.  Probabilistic bisimulation as a congruence , 2009, TOCL.

[13]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  Bisimulation can't be traced , 1988, POPL '88.

[14]  Frits W. Vaandrager,et al.  Turning SOS rules into equations , 1992, [1992] Proceedings of the Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[15]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Probabilistic Simulations for Probabilistic Processes , 1994, Nord. J. Comput..

[16]  Wan Fokkink The Tyft/Tyxt Format Reduces to Tree Rules , 1994, TACS.

[17]  F. Bartels,et al.  On Generalised Coinduction and Probabilistic Specification Formats , 2004 .

[18]  Roberto Segala,et al.  Modeling and verification of randomized distributed real-time systems , 1996 .

[19]  Wan Fokkink,et al.  Rooted Branching Bisimulation as a Congruence , 2000, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[20]  Luca Aceto,et al.  Structural Operational Semantics , 1999, Handbook of Process Algebra.

[21]  Matias David Lee,et al.  Tree rules in probabilistic transition system specifications with negative and quantitative premises , 2012, EXPRESS/SOS.

[22]  Erik P. de Vink,et al.  Axiomatizing GSOS with Termination , 2002, STACS.

[23]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  Transition System Specifications with Negative Premises , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[24]  Wan Fokkink,et al.  A Conservative Look at Operational Semantics with Variable Binding , 1998, Inf. Comput..

[25]  Bartek Klin,et al.  Structural Operational Semantics for Weighted Transition Systems , 2009, Semantics and Algebraic Specification.

[26]  Lijun Zhang,et al.  Deciding Bisimilarities on Distributions , 2013, QEST.

[27]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II , 1996, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[28]  Holger Hermanns,et al.  Deciding Probabilistic Automata Weak Bisimulation in Polynomial Time , 2012, FSTTCS.

[29]  Sonja Georgievska,et al.  Branching bisimulation congruence for probabilistic systems , 2012, Theor. Comput. Sci..