skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Better late than never: a fully-abstract semantics for classical processes

Published:02 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present Hypersequent Classical Processes (HCP), a revised interpretation of the “Proofs as Processes” correspondence between linear logic and the π-calculus initially proposed by Abramsky [1994], and later developed by Bellin and Scott [1994], Caires and Pfenning [2010], and Wadler [2014], among others. HCP mends the discrepancies between linear logic and the syntax and observable semantics of parallel composition in the π-calculus, by conservatively extending linear logic to hyperenvironments (collections of environments, inspired by the hypersequents by Avron [1991]). Separation of environments in hyperenvironments is internalised by ⊗ and corresponds to parallel process behaviour. Thanks to this property, for the first time we are able to extract a labelled transition system (lts) semantics from proof rewritings. Leveraging the information on parallelism at the level of types, we obtain a logical reconstruction of the delayed actions that Merro and Sangiorgi [2004] formulated to model non-blocking I/O in the π-calculus. We define a denotational semantics for processes based on Brzozowski derivatives, and uncover that non-interference in HCP corresponds to Fubini’s theorem of double antiderivation. Having an lts allows us to validate HCP using the standard toolbox of behavioural theory. We instantiate bisimilarity and barbed congruence for HCP, and obtain a full abstraction result: bisimilarity, denotational equivalence, and barbed congruence coincide.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a24-peressotti.webm

References

  1. Samson Abramsky. 1994. Proofs as Processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 135, 1 (1994), 5–9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Robert Atkey. 2017. Observed Communication Semantics for Classical Processes. In ESOP (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 10201. Springer, 56–82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Robert Atkey, Sam Lindley, and J. Garrett Morris. 2016. Conflation Confers Concurrency. In A List of Successes That Can Change the World - Essays Dedicated to Philip Wadler on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Sam Lindley, Conor McBride, Philip W. Trinder, and Donald Sannella (Eds.), Vol. 9600. Springer, 32–55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnon Avron. 1991. Hypersequents, logical consequence and intermediate logics for concurrency. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 4 (1991), 225–248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Michael Barr. 1991. *-Autonomous Categories and Linear Logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1 (1991), 159–178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Michael Barr. 1996. *-Autonomous categories, revisited. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 111, 1 (1996), 1 – 20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Gianluigi Bellin and Philip J. Scott. 1994. On the pi-Calculus and Linear Logic. TCS 135, 1 (1994), 11–65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Filippo Bonchi, Marcello M. Bonsangue, Helle Hvid Hansen, Prakash Panangaden, Jan J. M. M. Rutten, and Alexandra Silva. 2014. Algebra-coalgebra duality in Brzozowski’s minimization algorithm. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 15, 1 (2014), 3:1–3:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tomasz Brengos, Marino Miculan, and Marco Peressotti. 2015. Behavioural equivalences for coalgebras with unobservable moves. JLAMP 84, 6 (2015), 826–852.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Janusz A. Brzozowski. 1964. Derivatives of Regular Expressions. JACM 11, 4 (Oct. 1964), 481–494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Luís Caires and Jorge A. Pérez. 2017. Linearity, Control Effects, and Behavioral Types. In Programming Languages and Systems - 26th European Symposium on Programming, ESOP 2017, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, April 22-29, 2017, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Hongseok Yang (Ed.), Vol. 10201. Springer, 229–259. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Luís Caires and Frank Pfenning. 2010. Session Types as Intuitionistic Linear Propositions. In CONCUR. 222–236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Marco Carbone, Sam Lindley, Fabrizio Montesi, Carsten Schürmann, and Philip Wadler. 2016. Coherence Generalises Duality: A Logical Explanation of Multiparty Session Types. In CONCUR (LIPIcs), Vol. 59. 33:1–33:15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marco Carbone, Fabrizio Montesi, Carsten Schürmann, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2017. Multiparty session types as coherence proofs. Acta Informatica (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ornela Dardha and Simon J. Gay. 2018. A New Linear Logic for Deadlock-Free Session-Typed Processes. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures - 21st International Conference, FOSSACS 2018, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 14-20, 2018, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Christel Baier and Ugo Dal Lago (Eds.), Vol. 10803. Springer, 91–109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Henry DeYoung, Luís Caires, Frank Pfenning, and Bernardo Toninho. 2012. Cut Reduction in Linear Logic as Asynchronous Session-Typed Communication. In Computer Science Logic (CSL’12) - 26th International Workshop/21st Annual Conference of the EACSL, CSL 2012, September 3-6, 2012, Fontainebleau, France (LIPIcs), Patrick Cégielski and Arnaud Durand (Eds.), Vol. 16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 228–242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Fubini. 1907. Sugli integrali multipli. Rom. Acc. L. Rend. (5) 16, 1 (1907), 608–614.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jean-Yves Girard. 1987. Linear Logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50 (1987), 1–102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kohei Honda, Vasco Vasconcelos, and Makoto Kubo. 1998. Language primitives and type disciplines for structured communication-based programming. In ESOP. 22–138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida, and Marco Carbone. 2016. Multiparty Asynchronous Session Types. JACM 63, 1 (2016), 9. Also: POPL, 2008, pages 273–284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Naoki Kobayashi, Benjamin C. Pierce, and David N. Turner. 1999. Linearity and the pi-calculus. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 21, 5 (1999), 914–947. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dimitrios Kouzapas, Jorge A. Pérez, and Nobuko Yoshida. 2017. Characteristic bisimulation for higher-order session processes. Acta Inf. 54, 3 (2017), 271–341. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sam Lindley and Garrett Morris. 2016. Talking Bananas: structural recursion for session types. In ICFP. ACM. To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Massimo Merro and Davide Sangiorgi. 2004. On asynchrony in name-passing calculi. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14, 5 (2004), 715–767. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Robin Milner. 1989. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Fabrizio Montesi. 2018. Classical Higher-Order Processes. CoRR abs/1802.02917 (2018). arXiv: 1802.02917 http://arxiv.org/ abs/1802.02917Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. James H. Morris. 1968. Lambda-calculus models of programming languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. http://opac.inria.fr/record= b1000512 PHD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorge A. Pérez, Luís Caires, Frank Pfenning, and Bernardo Toninho. 2014. Linear logical relations and observational equivalences for session-based concurrency. Inf. Comput. 239 (2014), 254–302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Gordon D. Plotkin. 2004. A structural approach to operational semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 60-61 (2004), 17–139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Davide Sangiorgi. 1993. From pi-Calculus to Higher-Order pi-Calculus - and Back. In TAPSOFT. Springer, 151–166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Davide Sangiorgi. 1996. Pi-Calculus, Internal Mobility, and Agent-Passing Calculi. TCS 167, 1&2 (1996), 235–274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Davide Sangiorgi, Naoki Kobayashi, and Eijiro Sumii. 2011. Environmental bisimulations for higher-order languages. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33, 1 (2011), 5:1–5:69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Davide Sangiorgi and David Walker. 2001. The Pi-Calculus - a theory of mobile processes. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Bernardo Toninho, Luís Caires, and Frank Pfenning. 2013. Higher-Order Processes, Functions, and Sessions: A Monadic Integration. In ESOP (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7792. Springer, 350–369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Vasco T. Vasconcelos. 2012. Fundamentals of session types. Inf. Comput. 217 (2012), 52–70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Philip Wadler. 2014. Propositions as sessions. JFP 24, 2–3 (2014), 384–418. Also: ICFP, pages 273–286, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Nobuko Yoshida, Kohei Honda, and Martin Berger. 2007. Linearity and bisimulation. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 72, 2 (2007), 207–238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Better late than never: a fully-abstract semantics for classical processes

        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!