Abstract
Network theory uses the string diagrammatic language of monoidal categories to study graphical structures formally, eschewing specialised translations into intermediate formalisms. Recently, there has been a concerted research focus on developing a network theoretic approach to signal flow graphs, which are classical structures in control theory, signal processing and a cornerstone in the study of feedback. In this approach, signal flow graphs are given a relational denotational semantics in terms of formal power series.
Thus far, the operational behaviour of such signal flow graphs has only been discussed at an intuitive level. In this paper we equip them with a structural operational semantics. As is typically the case, the purely operational picture is too concrete -- two graphs that are denotationally equal may exhibit different operational behaviour. We classify the ways in which this can occur and show that any graph can be realised -- rewritten, using the graphical theory, into an executable form where the operational behavior and the denotation coincides.
Supplemental Material
- S. Abramsky. What are the fundamental structures of concurrency? we still don't know! CoRR, abs/1401.4973, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. C. Baez. Network theory. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. C. Baez and J. Erbele. Categories in control. CoRR, abs/1405.6881, 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6881.Google Scholar
- H. Basold, M. Bonsangue, H. H. Hansen, and J. Rutten. (co)algebraic characterizations of signal flow graphs. In To appear in LNCS, 2014.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- F. Bonchi, P. Sobociński, and F. Zanasi. A categorical semantics of signal flow graphs. In CONCUR , 2014.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- F. Bonchi, P. Sobociński, and F. Zanasi. Interacting bialgebras are Frobenius. In FoSSaCS '14. Springer, 2014.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- F. Bonchi, P. Sobociński, and F. Zanasi. Interacting Hopf algebras. CoRR, abs/1403.7048, 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7048.Google Scholar
- R. Bruni, U. Montanari, G. Plotkin, and D. Terreni. On hierarchical graphs: reconciling bigraphs, gs-monoidal theories and gs-graphs.Google Scholar
- R. Bruni, I. Lanese, and U. Montanari. A basic algebra of stateless connectors. Theor Comput Sci, 366:98--120, 2006. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Carboni and R. F. C. Walters. Cartesian bicategories I. J Pure Appl Algebra, 49:11--32, 1987.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- B. Coecke and R. Duncan. Interacting quantum observables. In ICALP'08, pages 298--310, 2008. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- B. Coecke, R. Duncan, A. Kissinger, and Q. Wang. Strong com- plementarity and non-locality in categorical quantum mechanics. In LiCS'12, pages 245--254, 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. P. Fiore and M. D. Campos. The algebra of directed acyclic graphs. In Abramsky Festschrift, volume 7860 of LNCS, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- B. Fong. A compositional approach to control theory. PhD Transfer Report, 2013.Google Scholar
- D. R. Ghica. Diagrammatic reasoning for delay-insensitive asyn- chronous circuits. In Abramsky Festschrift, pages 52--68, 2013.Google Scholar
- A. Joyal and R. Street. The geometry of tensor calculus, I. Adv. Math., 88:55--112, 1991.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- P. Katis, N. Sabadini, and R. F. C. Walters. Span(Graph): an algebra of transition systems. In AMAST '97, pages 322--336. Springer, 1997. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. M. Kelly and M. L. Laplaza. Coherence for compact closed categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 19:193--213, 1980.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- S. Lack. Composing PROPs. Theor App Categories, 13(9):147--163, 2004.Google Scholar
- Y. Lafont. Towards an algebraic theory of boolean circuits. J Pure Appl Alg, 184:257--310, 2003.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- B. Lahti. Signal Processing and Linear Systems. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
- S. Mac Lane. Categorical algebra. B Am Math Soc, 71:40--106, 1965.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- S. J. Mason. Feedback Theory: I. Some Properties of Signal Flow Graphs. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 1953.Google Scholar
- D. Pavlovic. Monoidal computer i: Basic computability by string diagrams. Inf. Comput., 226:94--116, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- D. Pavlovic. Monoidal computer ii: Normal complexity by string diagrams. CoRR, abs/1402.5687, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. J. M. M. Rutten. A tutorial on coinductive stream calculus and signal flow graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci., 343(3):443--481, 2005. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- P. Selinger. A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories. arXiv:0908.3347v1 {math.CT}, 2009.Google Scholar
- P. Sobociński. Nets, relations and linking diagrams. In CALCO '13, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- H. Wilf. Generatingfunctionology. A. K. Peters, 3rd edition, 2006. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J. C. Willems. The behavioural approach to open and interconnected systems. IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., 27:46--99, 2007.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- W. J. Zeng and J. Vicary. Abstract structure of unitary oracles for quantum algorithms. CoRR, abs/1406.1278, 2014.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Full Abstraction for Signal Flow Graphs
Recommendations
Rewriting modulo symmetric monoidal structure
LICS '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceString diagrams are a powerful and intuitive graphical syntax for terms of symmetric monoidal categories (SMCs). They find many applications in computer science and are becoming increasingly relevant in other fields such as physics and control theory.
...
A categorical approach to open and interconnected dynamical systems
LICS '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceIn his 1986 Automatica paper Willems introduced the influential behavioural approach to control theory with an investigation of linear time-invariant (LTI) discrete dynamical systems. The behavioural approach places open systems at its centre, modelling ...
Diagrammatic algebra: from linear to concurrent systems
We introduce the resource calculus, a string diagrammatic language for concurrent systems. Significantly, it uses the same syntax and operational semantics as the signal flow calculus --- an algebraic formalism for signal flow graphs, which is a ...







Comments