Testing Preorders for dMTS: Deadlock- and the New Deadlock/Divergence-Testing

Testing preorders on component specifications ensure that replacing a specification by a refined one does not introduce unwanted behaviour in an overall system. Considering deadlocks as unwanted, the preorder can be characterized by a failure semantics on labelled transition systems (LTS). In previous work, we have generalized this to modal transition systems (MTS) with a new, MTS-specific idea. In the present paper, we generalize this idea further to dMTS, a subclass of disjunctive MTS. On the one hand, the testing preorder can be characterized by the same failure semantics, and dMTS have no additional expressivity in our setting. On the other hand, the technical treatment is significantly harder and, surprisingly, the preorder is not a precongruence for parallel composition. Furthermore, we regard deadlocks and divergence as unwanted and characterize the testing preorder with an unusual failure-divergence semantics. This preorder is already on LTS strictly coarser - and hence better - than the traditional failuredivergence preorder. It is a precongruence on dMTS and much easier to handle than the deadlock-based preorder.

[1]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Failures without chaos: a new process semantics for fair abstraction , 1987, Formal Description of Programming Concepts.

[2]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Extensional equivalences for transition systems , 1987, Acta Informatica.

[3]  Walter Vogler.  Failures semantics and deadlocking of modular Petri nets , 2004, Acta Informatica.

[4]  Walter Vogler,et al.  Modular Construction and Partial Order Semantics of Petri Nets , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  Ivana Cerná,et al.  Modal Transition Systems: Composition and LTL Model Checking , 2011, ATVA.

[6]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Modal Specifications , 1989, Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems.

[7]  Antti Valmari,et al.  The Weakest Deadlock-Preserving Congruence , 1995, Inf. Process. Lett..

[8]  Walter Vogler,et al.  Error-pruning in interface automata , 2014, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  On Modal Refinement and Consistency , 2007, CONCUR.

[10]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Equation solving using modal transition systems , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[11]  Sebastián Uchitel,et al.  Merging Partial Behaviour Models with Different Vocabularies , 2013, CONCUR.

[12]  Walter Vogler,et al.  Failure Semantics for Modal Transition Systems , 2014, ACSD.

[13]  Walter Vogler,et al.  Modal Interface Automata , 2012, IFIP TCS.

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

[15]  Walter Vogler,et al.  Richer Interface Automata with Optimistic and Pessimistic Compatibility , 2014 .

[16]  Bernd Baumgarten,et al.  On Internal and External Characterizations of PT- net Building Block Behaviors , 1988, European Workshop on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets.

[17]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Testing Equivalences for Processes , 1984, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[18]  Matthew Hennessy,et al.  Algebraic theory of processes , 1988, MIT Press series in the foundations of computing.

[19]  Antti Valmari.  Failure-based Equivalences Are Faster Than Many Believe , 1995, STRICT.

[20]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes , 1984, JACM.