skip to main content
article

Environmental bisimulations for probabilistic higher-order languages

Published:11 January 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Environmental bisimulations for probabilistic higher-order languages are studied. In contrast with applicative bisimulations, environmental bisimulations are known to be more robust and do not require sophisticated techniques such as Howe’s in the proofs of congruence. As representative calculi, call-by-name and call-by-value λ- calculus, and a (call-by-value) λ-calculus extended with references (i.e., a store) are considered. In each case full abstraction results are derived for probabilistic environmental similarity and bisimilarity with respect to contextual preorder and contextual equivalence, respectively. Some possible enhancements of the (bi)simulations, as ‘up-to techniques’, are also presented. Probabilities force a number of modifications to the definition of environmental bisimulations in non-probabilistic languages. Some of these modifications are specific to probabilities, others may be seen as general refinements of environmental bisimulations, applicable also to non-probabilistic languages. Several examples are presented, to illustrate the modifications and the differences.

References

  1. M. Abadi and A. D. Gordon. A bisimulation method for cryptographic protocols. In C. Hankin, editor, Proc. ESOP’98, volume 1381 of LNCS, pages 12–26. Springer, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Abramsky. The Lazy λ-Calculus. In D. Turner, editor, Research Topics in Functional Programming, pages 65–117. Addison Wesley, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Biernacki and S. Lenglet. Environmental bisimulations for delimited-control operators. In APLAS, volume 8301 of LNCS, pages 333–348. Springer, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Bizjak and L. Birkedal. Step-indexed logical relations for probability. In Proc. FoSSaCS’15, pages 279–294, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. M. Boreale and D. Sangiorgi. Bisimulation in name-passing calculi without matching. In Proc. LICS’98. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Crubillé and U. Dal Lago. On probabilistic applicative bisimulation and call-by-value λ-calculi. In Proc. ESOP’14, pages 209–228, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Crubillé, U. Dal Lago, D. Sangiorgi, and V. Vignudelli. On applicative similarity, sequentiality, and full abstraction. In R. Meyer, A. Platzer, and H. Wehrheim, editors, Correct System Design, volume 9360 of LNCS, pages 65–82. Springer International Publishing, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. U. Dal Lago and M. Zorzi. Probabilistic operational semantics for the lambda calculus. RAIRO - Theor. Inf. and Applic., 46(3):413–450, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. U. Dal Lago, D. Sangiorgi, and M. Alberti. On coinductive equivalences for higher-order probabilistic functional programs. In Proc. POPL’14, pages 297–308, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. V. Danos and R. S. Harmer. Probabilistic game semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, 3(3):359–382, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Ehrhard, C. Tasson, and M. Pagani. Probabilistic coherence spaces are fully abstract for probabilistic PCF. In Proc. POPL’14, pages 309–320, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. D. Gordon. Bisimilarity as a theory of functional programming. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 1:232–252, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. Goubault-Larrecq. Full abstraction for non-deterministic and probabilistic extensions of PCF I: The angelic cases. Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming, 84(1):155 – 184, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. D. J. Howe. Proving congruence of bisimulation in functional programming languages. Inf. Comput., 124(2):103–112, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Hur, D. Dreyer, G. Neis, and V. Vafeiadis. The marriage of bisimulations and Kripke logical relations. In Proc. POPL’12, pages 59–72, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Jagadeesan, C. Pitcher, and J. Riely. Open bisimulation for aspects. T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development, 5:72–132, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Jeffrey and J. Rathke. Towards a theory of bisimulation for local names. In Proc. LICS’99, pages 56–66, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. V. Koutavas and M. Wand. Small bisimulations for reasoning about higher-order imperative programs. In Proc. POPL’06, pages 141–152, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. V. Koutavas and M. Wand. Bisimulations for untyped imperative objects. In Proc. ESOP’06, pages 146–161, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. V. Koutavas, P. B. Levy, and E. Sumii. From applicative to environmental bisimulation. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 276: 215–235, 2011.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. B. Lassen. Relational Reasoning about Functions and Nondeterminism. PhD thesis, University of Aarhus, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. B. Lassen and P. B. Levy. Typed normal form bisimulation. In CSL 2007, volume 4646 of LNCS, pages 283–297. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Maraist, M. Odersky, D. N. Turner, and P. Wadler. Call-by-name, call-by-value, call-by-need and the linear lambda calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci., 228(1-2):175–210, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Milner. Pure bigraphs: Structure and dynamics. Inf. Comput., 204 (1):60–122, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. C. Mitchell. Foundations for Programming Languages. MIT Press, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Piérard and E. Sumii. Sound bisimulations for higher-order distributed process calculus. In Proc. FoSSaCS’11, pages 123–137, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Piérard and E. Sumii. A higher-order distributed calculus with name creation. In Proc. LICS’12, pages 531–540, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Pitts. Typed operational reasoning. In B. C. Pierce, editor, Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages, chapter 7, pages 245–289. MIT Press, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. M. Pitts. Howe’s method for higher-order languages. In D. Sangiorgi and J. Rutten, editors, Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction, pages 197–232. Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Pous and D. Sangiorgi. Enhancements of the bisimulation proof method. In D. Sangiorgi and J. Rutten, editors, Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Rutten and B. Jacobs. (co)algebras and (co)induction. In D. Sangiorgi and J. Rutten, editors, Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. D. Sands. From SOS rules to proof principles: An operational metatheory for functional languages. In Proc. POPL’97, pages 428– 441, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. D. Sangiorgi. The lazy lambda calculus in a concurrency scenario. Inf. and Comp., 111(1):120–153, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. D. Sangiorgi, N. Kobayashi, and E. Sumii. Logical bisimulations and functional languages. In Proc. FSEN’07, volume 4767 of LNCS, pages 364–379, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. D. Sangiorgi, N. Kobayashi, and E. Sumii. Environmental bisimulations for higher-order languages. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 33(1):5, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. N. Sato and E. Sumii. The higher-order, call-by-value applied picalculus. In Proc. APLAS’09, pages 311–326, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. K. Støvring and S. B. Lassen. A complete, co-inductive syntactic theory of sequential control and state. In Proc. POPL’07, pages 161–172, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. E. Sumii and B. C. Pierce. A bisimulation for dynamic sealing. Theor. Comput. Sci., 375(1-3):169–192, 2007. A preliminary version in Proc. POPL’04, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. E. Sumii and B. C. Pierce. A bisimulation for type abstraction and recursion. J. ACM, 54(5), 2007. A preliminary version in Proc. POPL’05, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Environmental bisimulations for probabilistic higher-order languages

        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

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!