G-Reactive Systems as Coalgebras

The semantics of process calculi has traditionally been specified by labelled transition systems (LTSs), but with the development of name calculi it turned out that definitions employing reduction semantics are sometimes more natural. Reactive Systems a la Leifer and Milner allow to derive from a reduction semantics definition an LTS equipped with a bisimilarity relation which is a congruence. This theory has been extended to G-Reactive Systems by Sassone and Sobocinki in order to properly handle structural equivalence. Universal Coalgebra provides a categorical framework where bisimilarity can be characterized as final semantics, i.e., each LTS can be mapped to a minimal realization identifying bisimilar states. Moreover, it is often possible to lift coalgebras to an algebraic setting (yielding bialgebras by Turi and Plotkin or, slightly more generally, structured coalgebras by Corradini, Heckel and Montanari) with the property that bisimilarity is compositional with respect to the lifted structure. The existence of minimal realizations is of theoretical interest, but it is even more of practical interest whenever LTSs are employed for finite state verification. In this paper we show that for every G-Reactive System we can build a coalgebra. Furthermore, if bisimilarity is compositional in the Reactive System, then we can lift this coalgebra to a structured coalgebra.

[1]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  A Theory of Bisimulation for the pi-Calculus , 1993, CONCUR.

[2]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Structured Transition Systems as Lax Coalgebras , 1998, CMCS.

[3]  Ugo Montanari,et al.  Coalgebraic Models for Reactive Systems , 2007, CONCUR.

[4]  Gérard Berry,et al.  The chemical abstract machine , 1989, POPL '90.

[5]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Composition and Decomposition of DPO Transformations with Borrowed Context , 2006, ICGT.

[6]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Tile Transition Systems as Structured Coalgebras , 1999, FCT.

[7]  Ugo Montanari,et al.  Saturated Semantics for Reactive Systems , 2006, 21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06).

[8]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  From SOS Specifications to Structured Coalgebras: How to Make Bisimulation a Congruence , 1999, CMCS.

[9]  Alexander K. Petrenko,et al.  Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science , 2009 .

[10]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  On Bisimulations for the Asynchronous pi-Calculus , 1996, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  Locating reaction with 2-categories , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Fabio Gadducci,et al.  The tile model , 2000, Proof, Language, and Interaction.

[13]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  Reactive systems over cospans , 2005, 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS' 05).

[14]  Pawel Sobocinski.  Deriving process congruences from reaction rules , 2004 .

[15]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Deriving Bisimulation Congruences in the DPO Approach to Graph Rewriting , 2004, FoSSaCS.

[16]  Roberto Bruni,et al.  Bisimulation by Unification , 2002, AMAST.

[17]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  A theory of bisimulation for the π-calculus , 2009, Acta Informatica.

[18]  Robin Milner,et al.  Deriving Bisimulation Congruences for Reactive Systems , 2000, CONCUR.

[19]  Jan J. M. M. Rutten,et al.  Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Constructing Induction Rules for Deductive Synthesis Proofs , 2006, CLASE.

[21]  Gordon D. Plotkin,et al.  Towards a mathematical operational semantics , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.