Conflict vs Causality in Event Structures

Event structures are one of the best known models for concurrency. Many variants of the basic model and many possible notions of equivalence for them have been devised in the literature. In this paper, we study how the spectrum of equivalences for Labelled Prime Event Structures built by Van Glabbeek and Goltz changes if we consider two simplified notions of event structures: the first is obtained by removing the causality relation (Coherence Spaces) and the second by removing the conflict relation (Elementary Event Structures). As expected, in both cases the spectrum turns out to be simplified, since some notions of equivalence coincide in the simplified settings; actually, we prove that removing causality simplifies the spectrum considerably more than removing conflict. Furthermore, while the labeling of events and their cardinality play no role when removing causality, both the labeling function and the cardinality of the event set dramatically influence the spectrum of equivalences in the conflict-free setting.

[1]  Brendan D. McKay,et al.  Practical graph isomorphism, II , 2013, J. Symb. Comput..

[2]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency , 1988, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  P. S. Thiagarajan,et al.  Regular Event Structures and Finite Petri Nets: The Conflict-Free Case , 2002, ICATPN.

[4]  Ursula Goltz,et al.  On Characterising Distributability , 2013, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..

[5]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Petri Nets, Event Structures and Domains, Part I , 1981, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Ilaria Castellani,et al.  Permutation of transitions: An event structure semantics for CCS and SCCS , 1988, REX Workshop.

[7]  Ursula Goltz,et al.  Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems , 2001, Acta Informatica.

[8]  Antonio Bucciarelli,et al.  Sequentiality and strong stability , 1991, [1991] Proceedings Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[9]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum II , 1993, CONCUR.

[10]  James L. Peterson,et al.  Petri Nets , 1977, CSUR.

[11]  Ilaria Castellani,et al.  On the Semantics of Concurrency: Partial Orders and Transition Systems , 1987, TAPSOFT, Vol.1.

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

[13]  Silvia Crafa,et al.  A Logic for True Concurrency , 2010, JACM.

[14]  Vaughan R. Pratt,et al.  The Pomset Model of Parallel Processes: Unifying the Temporal and the Spatial , 1984, Seminar on Concurrency.

[15]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  The Linear Time-Branching Time Spectrum (Extended Abstract) , 1990, CONCUR.

[16]  Peter Radford,et al.  Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems , 1982 .

[17]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Partial orderings descriptions and observations of nondeterministic concurrent processes , 1988, REX Workshop.

[18]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[19]  Matthew Hennessy,et al.  The Power of the Future Perfect in Program Logics , 1984, Inf. Control..

[20]  Harald Fecher,et al.  A completed hierarchy of true concurrent equivalences , 2004, Inf. Process. Lett..

[21]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication , 1984, Inf. Control..

[22]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  Linear Logic , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[23]  Lucia Pomello,et al.  Some equivalence notions for concurrent systems. An overview , 1985, Applications and Theory in Petri Nets.

[24]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Models for Concurrency , 1994 .

[25]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Back and Forth Bisimulations , 1990, CONCUR.

[26]  Antonio Bucciarelli,et al.  Extensional Embedding of a Strongly Stable Model of PCF , 1991, ICALP.

[27]  Vaughan R. Pratt,et al.  Modeling concurrency with partial orders , 1986, International Journal of Parallel Programming.