Bisimilarity and Behavioural Equivalences Lus Soares Barbosa HASLab - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bisimilarity and Behavioural Equivalences Luís Soares Barbosa HASLab - INESC TEC Universidade do Minho Braga, Portugal February 2019

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Behavioural Equivalences – Intuition Two LTS should be equivalent if they cannot be distinguished by interacting with them. Equality of functional behaviour is not preserved by parallel composition: non compositional semantics, cf, x:=4; x:=x+1 and x:=5 Graph isomorphism is too strong (why?) 2 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Trace Definition Let T = � S , N , − →� be a labelled transition system. The set of traces Tr( s ), for s ∈ S is the minimal set satisfying (1) ǫ ∈ Tr( s ) (2) a σ ∈ Tr( s ) ⇒ �∃ s ′ : s ′ ∈ S : s → s ′ ∧ σ ∈ Tr( s ′ ) � a − 3 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Trace equivalence Definition Two states s , r are trace equivalent iff Tr( s ) = Tr( r ) (i.e. if they can perform the same finite sequences of transitions) Example alarm alarm set set set reset reset Trace equivalence applies when one can neither interact with a system, nor distinguish a slow system from one that has come to a stand still. 4 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Simulation the quest for a behavioural equality: able to identify states that cannot be distinguished by any realistic form of observation Simulation A state q simulates another state p if every transition from q is corresponded by a transition from p and this capacity is kept along the whole life of the system to which state space q belongs to. 5 / 43

� � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Simulation Definition Given � S 1 , N , − → 1 � and � S 2 , N , − → 2 � over N , relation R ⊆ S 1 × S 2 is a simulation iff, for all � p , q � ∈ R and a ∈ N , → 1 p ′ ⇒ �∃ q ′ : q ′ ∈ S 2 : q → 2 q ′ ∧ � p ′ , q ′ � ∈ R � a a (1) p − − p R q q ⇒ a a p ′ R q ′ p ′ 6 / 43

� � � � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Example Find simulations d � q 2 q 1 p 2 a d a � p 1 q 0 p 0 a e � q 3 q 4 p 3 e 7 / 43

� � � � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Example Find simulations d � q 2 q 1 p 2 a d a � p 1 q 0 p 0 a e � q 3 q 4 p 3 e q 0 � p 0 {� q 0 , p 0 � , � q 1 , p 1 � , � q 4 , p 1 � , � q 2 , p 2 � , � q 3 , p 3 �} cf. 7 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Similarity Definition p � q ≡ �∃ R :: R is a simulation and � p , q � ∈ R � We say q simulates p. Lemma The similarity relation is a preorder (ie, reflexive and transitive) 8 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Bisimulation Definition Given � S 1 , N , − → 1 � and � S 2 , N , − → 2 � over N , relation R ⊆ S 1 × S 2 is a bisimulation iff both R and its converse R ◦ are simulations. I.e., whenever � p , q � ∈ R and a ∈ N , → 1 p ′ ⇒ �∃ q ′ : q ′ ∈ S 2 : q → 2 q ′ ∧ � p ′ , q ′ � ∈ R � a a (1) p − − → 2 q ′ ⇒ �∃ p ′ : p ′ ∈ S 1 : p → 1 p ′ ∧ � p ′ , q ′ � ∈ R � a a (2) q − − p R q q p p q R ⇒ ⇐ a a a a p ′ p ′ q ′ p ′ R q ′ q ′ R 9 / 43

� � � � � � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Examples Find bisimulations q 1 m a a a c � q 3 q 2 n c c a a a � · · · � q 2 � q 3 q 1 h a 10 / 43

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Examples Find bisimulations q 1 p 1 a a a q 2 q 3 p 2 c c c c q 4 q 5 p 4 p 5 q 1 p 1 a a a q 2 q 3 p 2 c b c b q 4 q 5 p 4 p 5 11 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour After thoughts • Follows a ∀ , ∃ pattern: p in all its transitions challenge q which is called to find a match to each of those (and conversely) • Tighter correspondence with transitions • Based on the information that the transitions convey, rather than on the shape of the LTS • Local checks on states • Lack of hierarchy on the pairs of the bisimulation (no temporal order on the checks is required) which means bisimilarity can be used to reason about infinite or circular behaviours. 12 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour After thoughts Compare the definition of bisimilarity with p == q if, for all a ∈ N → 1 p ′ ⇒ �∃ q ′ : q ′ ∈ S 2 : q → 2 q ′ ∧ p ′ == q ′ � a a (1) p − − → 2 q ′ ⇒ �∃ p ′ : p ′ ∈ S 1 : p → 1 p ′ ∧ p ′ == q ′ � a a − − (2) q 13 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour After thoughts p == q if, for all a ∈ N → 1 p ′ ⇒ �∃ q ′ : q ′ ∈ S 2 : q → 2 q ′ ∧ p ′ == q ′ � a a (1) p − − → 2 q ′ ⇒ �∃ p ′ : p ′ ∈ S 1 : p → 1 p ′ ∧ p ′ == q ′ � a a (2) q − − • The meaning of == on the pair � p , q � requires having already established the meaning of == on the derivatives • ... therefore the definition is ill-founded if the state space reachable from � p , q � is infinite or contain loops • ... this is a local but inherently inductive definition (to revisit later) 14 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour After thoughts Proof method To prove that two behaviours are bisimilar, find a bisimulation containing them ... • ... impredicative character • coinductive vs inductive definition 15 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Properties Definition p ∼ q ≡ �∃ R :: R is a bisimulation and � p , q � ∈ R � Lemma 1 The identity relation id is a bisimulation 2 The empty relation ⊥ is a bisimulation 3 The converse R ◦ of a bisimulation is a bisimulation 4 The composition S · R of two bisimulations S and R is a bisimulation 5 The � i ∈ I R i of a family of bisimulations { R i | i ∈ I } is a bisimulation 16 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Properties Lemma The bisimilarity relation is an equivalence relation (ie, reflexive, symmetric and transitive) Lemma The class of all bisimulations between two LTS has the structure of a complete lattice, ordered by set inclusion, whose top is the bisimilarity relation ∼ . 17 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Properties Lemma In a deterministic labelled transition system, two states are bisimilar iff they are trace equivalent, i.e., s ∼ s ′ ⇔ Tr( s ) = Tr( s ′ ) Hint: define a relation R as � x , y � ∈ R ⇔ Tr( x ) = Tr( y ) and show R is a bisimulation. 18 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Properties Warning The bisimilarity relation ∼ is not the symmetric closure of � � � � � p � q and q � p p ∼ q i.e., does not imply 19 / 43

� � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Properties Warning The bisimilarity relation ∼ is not the symmetric closure of � Example q 0 � p 0 , p 0 � q 0 p 0 �∼ q 0 but q 1 a a � p 1 b � p 3 q 0 p 0 a b � q 3 q 2 20 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Notes Similarity as the greatest simulation � � � { S | S is a simulation } Bisimilarity as the greatest bisimulation � ∼ � { S | S is a bisimulation } 21 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Exercises P,Q Bisimilar? P = a . P 1 P,Q Bisimilar? P 1 = b . P + c . P P = a . ( b . 0 + c . 0 ) Q = a . Q 1 Q 1 = b . Q 2 + c . Q Q = a . b . 0 + a . c . 0 Q 2 = a . Q 3 Q 3 = b . Q + c . Q 2 22 / 43

� � � � � � � � � � � Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Exercises Find a bisimulation a s a a � t 3 � t 4 � t � � � � a � a � � a � a � � a s 1 s 2 � t 1 a � ���������� � � � a � b � a � � a b � � s 3 s 4 t 2 23 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Processes are ’prototipycal’ transition systems Example: S ∼ M T � i . k . T R � k . j . R S � ( T | R ) \{ k } M � i .τ. N N � j . i .τ. N + i . j .τ. N through bisimulation R = {� S , M ) � , � ( k . T | R ) \{ k } , τ. N � , � ( T | j . R ) \{ k } , N � , � ( k . T | j . R ) \{ k } , j .τ. N �} 24 / 43

Behavioural equivalences Similarity Bisimilarity Observable behaviour Example: Semaphores A semaphore Sem � get . put . Sem n -semaphores Sem n � Sem n , 0 Sem n , 0 � get . Sem n , 1 Sem n , i � get . Sem n , i +1 + put . Sem n , i − 1 (for 0 < i < n ) Sem n , n � put . Sem n , n − 1 Sem n can also be implemented by the parallel composition of n Sem processes: Sem n � Sem | Sem | ... | Sem 25 / 43