skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Familial monads and structural operational semantics

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Editorial Notes Section

Editorial Notes

A corrigendum was issued for this paper on January 25, 2021. You can download the corrigendum from the supplemental material section of this citation page.

Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We propose a categorical framework for structural operational semantics, in which we prove that under suitable hypotheses bisimilarity is a congruence. We then refine the framework to prove soundness of bisimulation up to context, an efficient method for reducing the size of bisimulation relations. Finally, we demonstrate the flexibility of our approach by reproving known results in three variants of the π-calculus.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a21-hirschowitz.webm

References

  1. C. Berger, P.-A. Melliès, and M. Weber. 2012. Monads with arities and their associated theories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 216, 8 (2012), 2029 – 2048.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Karen L. Bernstein. 1998. A Congruence Theorem for Structured Operational Semantics of Higher-Order Languages. In Proc. 13th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science IEEE Computer Society, 153–164. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bard Bloom, Sorin Istrail, and Albert R. Meyer. 1995. Bisimulation Can’t be Traced. Journal of the ACM 42, 1 (1995), 232–268. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Roland N. Bol and Jan Friso Groote. 1996. The Meaning of Negative Premises in Transition System Specifications. Journal of the ACM 43, 5 (1996), 863–914. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Filippo Bonchi, Daniela Petrişan, Damien Pous, and Jurriaan Rot. 2016. A general account of coinduction up-to. Acta Informatica (2016), 1–64. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gérard Boudol and Ilaria Castellani. 1988. A non-interleaving semantics for CCS based on proved transitions. Fundamenta Informaticae XI (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Aurelio Carboni and Peter Johnstone. 1995. Connected limits, familial representability and Artin glueing. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 5, 4 (1995), 441–459.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gian Luca Cattani, John Power, and Glynn Winskel. 1998. A Categorical Axiomatics for Bisimulation, See { Sangiorgi and de Simone 1998 }, 581–596.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Yves Diers. 1978. Spectres et localisations relatifs à un foncteur. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 287, 15 (1978), 985–988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jérémy Dubut, Eric Goubault, and Jean Goubault-Larrecq. 2016. Bisimulations and unfolding in 𝒫-accessible categorical models. In Proc. 27th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (LIPIcs), Josée Desharnais and Radha Jagadeesan (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Marcelo P. Fiore and Sam Staton. 2006. A Congruence Rule Format for Name-Passing Process Calculi from Mathematical Structural Operational Semantics. In Proc. 21st Symposium on Logic in Computer Science IEEE, 49–58. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marcelo P. Fiore and Daniele Turi. 2001. Semantics of Name and Value Passing. In Proc. 16th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science IEEE, 93–104. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Richard H. G. Garner and Tom Hirschowitz. 2018. Shapely monads and analytic functors. Journal of Logic and Computation 28, 1 (2018), 33–83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tom Hirschowitz. 2018. Familial monads and structural operational semantics. (2018). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-01815328 Preprint.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Mark Hovey. 1999. Model Categories. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Volume 63, AMS (1999), Vol. 63. American Mathematical Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Peter T. Johnstone. 2002. Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium - Volume 1. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. André Joyal, Mogens Nielsen, and Glynn Winskel. 1993. Bisimulation and open maps. In Proc. 8th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science IEEE, 418–427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Bartek Klin. 2011. Bialgebras for structural operational semantics: An introduction. Theoretical Computer Science 412, 38 (2011), 5043–5069. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Joachim Kock. 2011. Polynomial functors and trees. International Mathematics Research Notices 2011, 3 (2011), 609–673.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. F. W. Lawvere. 1963. Functorial semantics of algebraic theories. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Saunders Mac Lane. 1998. Categories for the Working Mathematician (2nd ed.). Number 5 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Saunders Mac Lane and Ieke Moerdijk. 1992. Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. C. A. Middelburg. 2001. Variable binding operators in transition system specifications. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47, 1 (2001), 15–45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. MohammadReza Mousavi, Michel A. Reniers, and Jan Friso Groote. 2007. SOS Formats and Meta-Theory: 20 Years After. Theoretical Computer Science 373, 3 (2007), 238–272. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohammad Reza Mousavi, Murdoch Gabbay, and Michel A. Reniers. 2005. SOS for Higher Order Processes. In CONCUR 2005 - Concurrency Theory, 16th International Conference, CONCUR 2005, San Francisco, CA, USA, August 23-26, 2005, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Martín Abadi and Luca de Alfaro (Eds.), Vol. 3653. Springer, 308–322. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon D. Plotkin. 1981. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. DAIMI Report FN-19. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Damien Pous and Davide Sangiorgi. 2011. Enhancements of the bisimulation proof method, Chapter 6. In Sangiorgi and Rutten { Sangiorgi and Rutten 2011 }.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Emily Riehl. 2014. Categorical Homotopy Theory. Number 24 in New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. David Sands. 1997. From SOS Rules to Proof Principles: An Operational Metatheory for Functional Languages. In Proc. 24th International Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Peter Lee, Fritz Henglein, and Neil D. Jones (Eds.). ACM Press, 428–441. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Davide Sangiorgi. 1994. The Lazy Lambda Calculus in a Concurrency Scenario. Information and Computation 111, 1 (1994), 120–153. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Davide Sangiorgi and Robert de Simone (Eds.). 1998. Proc. 9th International Conference on Concurrency Theory. LNCS, Vol. 1466. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Davide Sangiorgi and Jan Rutten (Eds.). 2011. Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction. Number 52 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Davide Sangiorgi and David Walker. 2001. The 𝜋-calculus – A Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Peter Sewell. 1998. From Rewrite Rules to Bisimulation Congruences, See { Sangiorgi and de Simone 1998 }, 269–284. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Sam Staton. 2008. General Structural Operational Semantics through Categorical Logic. In Proc. 23rd Symposium on Logic in Computer Science 166–177. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Daniele Turi and Gordon D. Plotkin. 1997. Towards a Mathematical Operational Semantics. In Proc. 12th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science 280–291. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mark Weber. 2007. Familial 2-functors and parametric right adjoints. Theory and Applications of Categories 18, 22 (2007), 665–732.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Familial monads and structural operational semantics

          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!