skip to main content
10.1145/2505879.2505902acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesppdpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Efficient computation of program equivalence for confluent concurrent constraint programming

Published:16 September 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Concurrent Constraint Programming (ccp) is a well-established declarative framework from concurrency theory. Its foundations and principles e.g., semantics, proof systems, axiomatizations, have been thoroughly studied for over the last two decades. In contrast, the development of algorithms and automatic verification procedures for ccp have hitherto been far too little considered. To the best of our knowledge there is only one existing verification algorithm for the standard notion of ccp program (observational) equivalence. In this paper we first show that this verification algorithm has an exponential-time complexity even for programs from a representative sub-language of ccp; the summation-free fragment (ccp\+). We then significantly improve on the complexity of this algorithm by providing two alternative polynomial-time decision procedures for ccp\+ program equivalence. Each of these two procedures has an advantage over the other. One has a better time complexity. The other can be easily adapted for the full language of ccp to produce significant state space reductions. The relevance of both procedures derives from the importance of ccp\+. This fragment, which has been the subject of many theoretical studies, has strong ties to first-order logic and an elegant denotational semantics, and it can be used to model real-world situations. Its most distinctive feature is that of confluence, a property we exploit to obtain our polynomial procedures.

References

  1. L. Aceto, A. Ingolfsdottir, and J. Srba. Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction, chapter The Algorithmics of Bisimilarity, pages 100--172. Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. R. M. Amadio, I. Castellani, and D. Sangiorgi. On bisimulations for the asynchronous pi-calculus. In CONCUR, volume 1119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 147--162. Springer, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Aristizabal, F. Bonchi, C. Palamidessi, L. Pino, and F. D. Valencia. Deriving labels and bisimilarity for concurrent constraint programming. In FOSSACS, LNCS, pages 138--152. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Aristizabal, F. Bonchi, L. Pino, and F. D. Valencia. Partition refinement for bisimilarity in ccp. In SAC, pages 88--93. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Aristizábal, F. Bonchi, L. F. Pino, and F. Valencia. Reducing weak to strong bisimilarity in ccp. In ICE, pages 2--16, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Bartoletti and R. Zunino. A calculus of contracting processes. In LICS, pages 332--341. IEEE Computer Society, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Bengtson, M. Johansson, J. Parrow, and B. Victor. Psi-calculi: Mobile processes, nominal data, and logic. In LICS, pages 39--48, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Bonchi, F. Gadducci, and G. V. Monreale. Reactive systems, barbed semantics, and the mobile ambients. In FOSSACS, LNCS, pages 272--287, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. F. Bonchi, B. König, and U. Montanari. Saturated semantics for reactive systems. In LICS, pages 69--80. IEEE, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Bouali and R. de Simone. Symbolic bisimulation minimisation. In CAV, volume 663 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 96--108. Springer, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. G. Buscemi and U. Montanari. Open bisimulation for the concurrent constraint pi-calculus. In ESOP, pages 254--268, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. F. S. de Boer, A. D. Pierro, and C. Palamidessi. Nondeterminism and infinite computations in constraint programming. Theor. Comput. Sci., 151(1):37--78, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Dovier, C. Piazza, and A. Policriti. An efficient algorithm for computing bisimulation equivalence. Theor. Comput. Sci., 311(1-3):221--256, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J.-C. Fernandez and L. Mounier. Verifying bisimulations "on the fly". In FORTE, pages 95--110. North-Holland, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. H. Garavel. Reflections on the future of concurrency theory in general and process calculi in particular. In Proc. of LIX Colloquium on Emergent Trends in Concurrency Theory, Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 209, pages 149--164, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. C. Kanellakis and S. A. Smolka. Ccs expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. In PODC, pages 228--240. ACM, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Knight, C. Palamidessi, P. Panangaden, and F. D. Valencia. Spatial and epistemic modalities in constraint-based process calculi. In CONCUR, pages 317--332, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. P. Mendler, P. Panangaden, P. J. Scott, and R. A. G. Seely. A logical view of concurrent constraint programming. Nord. J. Comput., 2(2):181--220, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. Milner and D. Sangiorgi. Barbed bisimulation. In ICALP, LNCS, pages 685--695. Springer, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. C. Olarte and F. D. Valencia. Universal concurrent constraint programing: symbolic semantics and applications to security. In SAC, pages 145--150. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Paige and R. E. Tarjan. Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM J. Comput., 16(6):973--989, Dec. 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Palamidessi, V. A. Saraswat, F. D. Valencia, and B. Victor. On the expressiveness of linearity vs persistence in the asychronous pi-calculus. In LICS, pages 59--68, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. L. Pino, F. Bonchi, and F. Valencia. Efficient computation of program equivalence for confluent concurrent constraint programming (technical report). Technical report, LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, 2013. http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~luis.pino/files/minset-extended.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. V. A. Saraswat, R. Jagadeesan, and V. Gupta. Foundations of timed concurrent constraint programming. In LICS, pages 71--80. IEEE, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. V. A. Saraswat, M. C. Rinard, and P. Panangaden. Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In POPL, pages 333--352. ACM Press, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Efficient computation of program equivalence for confluent concurrent constraint programming

                    Recommendations

                    Comments

                    Login options

                    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                    Sign in
                    • Published in

                      cover image ACM Other conferences
                      PPDP '13: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming
                      September 2013
                      308 pages
                      ISBN:9781450321549
                      DOI:10.1145/2505879

                      Copyright © 2013 ACM

                      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                      Publisher

                      Association for Computing Machinery

                      New York, NY, United States

                      Publication History

                      • Published: 16 September 2013

                      Permissions

                      Request permissions about this article.

                      Request Permissions

                      Check for updates

                      Qualifiers

                      • research-article

                      Acceptance Rates

                      Overall Acceptance Rate230of486submissions,47%

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader