跟踪语义是完全抽象的

Sumit Nain, Moshe Y. Vardi
{"title":"跟踪语义是完全抽象的","authors":"Sumit Nain, Moshe Y. Vardi","doi":"10.1109/LICS.2009.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discussion in the computer-science literature of the relative merits of linear- versus branching-time frameworks goes back to the early 1980s. One of the beliefs dominating this discussion has been that the linear-time framework is not expressive enough semantically, making linear-time logics lacking in expressiveness. In this work we examine the branching-linear issue from the perspective of process equivalence, which is one of the most fundamental concepts in concurrency theory, as defining a notion of equivalence essentially amounts to defining semantics for processes. We accept three principles that have been recently proposed for concurrent-process equivalence. The first principle takes contextual equivalence as the primary notion of equivalence. The second principle requires the description of a process to specify all relevant behavioral aspects of the process. The third principle requires observable process behavior to be reflected in its input/output behavior. It has been recently shown that under these principles trace semantics for nondeterministic transducers is fully abstract. Here we consider two extensions of the earlier model: probabilistic transducers and asynchronous transducers. We show that in both cases trace semantics is fully abstract.","PeriodicalId":415902,"journal":{"name":"2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trace Semantics is Fully Abstract\",\"authors\":\"Sumit Nain, Moshe Y. Vardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/LICS.2009.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discussion in the computer-science literature of the relative merits of linear- versus branching-time frameworks goes back to the early 1980s. One of the beliefs dominating this discussion has been that the linear-time framework is not expressive enough semantically, making linear-time logics lacking in expressiveness. In this work we examine the branching-linear issue from the perspective of process equivalence, which is one of the most fundamental concepts in concurrency theory, as defining a notion of equivalence essentially amounts to defining semantics for processes. We accept three principles that have been recently proposed for concurrent-process equivalence. The first principle takes contextual equivalence as the primary notion of equivalence. The second principle requires the description of a process to specify all relevant behavioral aspects of the process. The third principle requires observable process behavior to be reflected in its input/output behavior. It has been recently shown that under these principles trace semantics for nondeterministic transducers is fully abstract. Here we consider two extensions of the earlier model: probabilistic transducers and asynchronous transducers. We show that in both cases trace semantics is fully abstract.\",\"PeriodicalId\":415902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2009.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2009 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2009.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

计算机科学文献中关于线性时间框架与分支时间框架的相对优点的讨论可以追溯到20世纪80年代初。主导这一讨论的信念之一是线性时间框架在语义上不够表达,使得线性时间逻辑缺乏表达能力。在这项工作中,我们从进程等价的角度研究分支线性问题,这是并发理论中最基本的概念之一,因为定义等价的概念本质上相当于定义进程的语义。我们接受最近提出的并发进程等价的三个原则。第一原则以语境对等作为对等的基本概念。第二个原则要求对过程进行描述,以指定过程的所有相关行为方面。第三个原则要求可观察的流程行为反映在其输入/输出行为中。最近的研究表明,在这些原理下,不确定性换能器的迹语义是完全抽象的。这里我们考虑两个早期模型的扩展:概率传感器和异步传感器。我们表明,在这两种情况下,跟踪语义都是完全抽象的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trace Semantics is Fully Abstract
The discussion in the computer-science literature of the relative merits of linear- versus branching-time frameworks goes back to the early 1980s. One of the beliefs dominating this discussion has been that the linear-time framework is not expressive enough semantically, making linear-time logics lacking in expressiveness. In this work we examine the branching-linear issue from the perspective of process equivalence, which is one of the most fundamental concepts in concurrency theory, as defining a notion of equivalence essentially amounts to defining semantics for processes. We accept three principles that have been recently proposed for concurrent-process equivalence. The first principle takes contextual equivalence as the primary notion of equivalence. The second principle requires the description of a process to specify all relevant behavioral aspects of the process. The third principle requires observable process behavior to be reflected in its input/output behavior. It has been recently shown that under these principles trace semantics for nondeterministic transducers is fully abstract. Here we consider two extensions of the earlier model: probabilistic transducers and asynchronous transducers. We show that in both cases trace semantics is fully abstract.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信