CCS: Property Specification. Reading: Slides. Mads Dam. Goal: Logic to express interesting correctness properties for CCS CCS: Standard labelled transition system so LTL and CTL applies Here: Introduce very powerful temporal logic – mucalculus Strong ties to bisimulation equivalence.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Goal: Logic to express interesting correctness properties for CCS
CCS:
Standard labelled transition system so LTL and CTL applies
Here:
Introduce very powerful temporal logic – mucalculus
Strong ties to bisimulation equivalence
Temporal Logics for CCSLogic for possibility/contingency and necessity
<>: is possible
[]: is necessary
Kripke structure: Possible worlds and accessibility relation
w : <> : holds in some w’ accessible from w
w : [] : holds in all w’ accessible from w
Here: Use a labelled accessibility relation !
Note:
LTL and CTL are themselves modal logics, with modalities such as O, AX, EX, F, G, U (binary), AF, etc.
Modal logic with labelled accessibility/transition relation
P ² <> holds in some P’ such that P P’
P ² [] holds in all P’ such that P P’
Directly representable as unary FOL predicate:
(<>)(P) iff 9 P’.P ! P’ Æ(P’)
([])(P) iff 8 P’.P ! P’ implies (P’)
HML syntax:
Positive form, no negation needed
De Morgan: <> = [] , [] = <>
Distinguishing formula:
<a>[b]false distinguishes a.b.0 + a.c.0 from a.(b.0 + c.0)
HML characterises strong bisimulation equivalence for CCS:
Theorem (Modal Characterisation): Provided all process definitions are guarded, the following statements are equivalent for P, Q guarded:
(This material is intermediate level)
1 ! 2: Use induction on structure of
2 ! 1: Let:
P »0 Q (always)
P »i+1 Q iff
Exercise: Show that for all i2N, »i¶»i+1 (monotonicity)
Let P »’ Q iff P »i Q for all i2N
Exercise: Show that P »’ Q if P » Q
Exercise: Show that if P is guarded then {P’  P ! P’} is finite (terminology: P is image finite)
We show P »’ Q implies P » Q.
If P ! P’ then there exists some Q’ such that for infinitely many i2N, Q ! Q’ and P’ »i Q’
This follows from image finiteness
But then P’ »i Q’ for all i2N
This follows from monotonicity
Symmetrically, if Q ! Q’ some P’ can be found
But then »’ is a strong bisimulation relation, so P » Q
So if P ¿ Q then there is some i2N such that P ¿i Q
Use this to construct HML formula P,i such that P ² and Q ²:
Suppose P ¿i Q
Construct P,i by induction on i
Base case, i = 0: Immediate contradiction since P »0 Q
Induction step, i = i’+1:
Let P,i = Æ{<>P’,i’  P ! P’} Æ (Æ[](Ç{P’,i’  P ! P’}))
Use induction to show P ²P,i
Since P ¿i Q either
In either case the argument is closed by the induction hypothesis
Exercise: Fill in the details

P : true
True
P :
P :
P :
P :
OrL
OrR
P : P :
P :
P’ :
P : <>
(P ! P’)
And
Dia
P1 : ... Pn :
P : []
Box
({P1,...,Pn} = {P’  P ! P’})
Action sets
L abbreviates ActL
 abbreviates Act
Weak modalities <<L>>, [[L]]:
Adding a temporal dimension to HML
Observation: CTL operators are recursive, e.g. AG = Æ AXAG
Unfortuntely, equations do not have unique solutions
Which sets satisfy the equation X = <>X ?
Sol’n 1: least solution, X. <> X
Sol’n 2: greatest solution, X. <> X
Unfolding fixed point formulas ( is either or ):
X. = [ X. / X]
Example: X.<>X = <>X.<>X = <> <>X.<>X ...
Fixed point approximants:
0X. = false 0X. = true
k+1X. = [kX./X] k+1X. = [kX./X]
KnasterTarski Theorem (for CCS and strong transitions):
X. = k.kX. X. = k.kX.
Note that:
0X. 1X. 2X. ... X.
0X. 1X. 2X. ... X.
calculus: Tiny programming language for program properties
AG X. []X
terminates X.[]X
AF X. (<>tt []X)
A( U ) X.Ç (Æ []X)
Eventually has to be taken X.<>tt []X
On all paths infinitely often X.Y.( [] X) []Y
<<>> X. <>X
<<>> <<>><><<>>
Point to note: Once some abbreviation has been introduced it’s free to being used, of course.
Ongoing capability X.<<in>><<out>>X
Alternation of in and out AG [[in]][[out]]false
AG [[out]][[in]]false
Deadlock freedom AG <>tt
Progress AG X.[]X
Word of warning: It’s easy to say ”alternation of in and out”. What do you actually mean?
More precisely: Which property of infinite labelled trees are you after?
Let A be a set of CCS terms:
P ²AX. means P ² [A{P}X./X] or P A
P ²AX. means P ² [A{P}X./X] and P A
Idea: Has P been already visited?
Proof rules:
And a ”negative” rule:
P : [A,PX./X]
P : AX.

P : AX.
Fix1
Fix2
(P A)
(P A)
P : AX.
 give up 
Fix3
(P A)
Buf = in.out.Buf
Sys = (Buf[comm/out]  Buf[comm/in])Â{comm}
Spec = ”On all paths infinitely often out is possible”
= X.Y.(<out>true []X) []Y
Prove Sys : Spec
Proof given in class