Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness

Glabbeek, Robert van

doi:10.4204/eptcs.89.7

Cited by 31 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature various different criteria and different variants of the same criteria are employed to achieve separation and encodability results [15,40,42,43,44,41,59,9,45,8,22,52,17]. Some criteria, like full abstraction or operational correspondence, are used frequently.…”

Section: Encodability Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Process Calculi Using Encodings

Peters

2019

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with encodability criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover, it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. This paper provides a short survey on often used encodability criteria, general frameworks that try to provide a unified notion of the quality of an encoding, and methods to analyse and compare encodability criteria.

show abstract

Section: Encodability Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Process Calculi Using Encodings

Peters

2019

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These valid encodings are those used, sometimes with mild adaptations, in [18,17,25,10,14] and have also inspired similar works [21,22,31]. However, there are alternative approaches to encoding criteria or comparing expressive power [30,3,7,5,27,31]. Further discussion of the choices of encodings, and contrasting with other approaches can be found in [18,17,29,31,14].…”

Section: Encodingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The choice of valid encodings here is to align with prior works [16,18,12] and where possible reuse prior results. These valid encodings are those used, sometimes with mild adaptations, in [18,17,25,10,14] and have also inspired similar works [21,22,31]. However, there are alternative approaches to encoding criteria or comparing expressive power [30,3,7,5,27,31].…”

Section: Encodingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Expressiveness of Symmetric Communication

Given-Wilson

Legay

2016

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The expressiveness of communication primitives has been explored in a common framework based on the π-calculus by considering four features: synchronism, arity, communication medium, and pattern-matching. These all assume asymmetric communication between input and output primitives, however some calculi consider more symmetric approaches to communication such as fusion calculus and Concurrent Pattern Calculus. Symmetry can be considered either as supporting exchange of information between an action and co-action, or as unification of actions. By means of possibility/impossibility of encodings, this paper shows that the exchange approach is related to, or more expressive than, many previously considered languages. Meanwhile, the unification approach is more expressive than some, but mostly unrelated to, other languages.

show abstract

“…We define the formal notion of encoding by extending to a typed setting existing criteria for untyped processes (as in, e.g., [24,26,27,10,16,8,41,30]). We first define a typed calculus parametrised by a syntax, operational semantics, and typing.…”

Section: Criteria For Typed Encodingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Relative Expressiveness of Higher-Order Session Processes

Kouzapas

Pérez

Yoshida

2016

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. By integrating constructs from the λ-calculus and the π-calculus, in higher-order process calculi exchanged values may contain processes. This paper studies the relative expressiveness of HOπ, the higher-order π-calculus in which communications are governed by session types. Our main discovery is that HO, a subcalculus of HOπ which lacks name-passing and recursion, can serve as a new core calculus for session-typed higher-order concurrency. By exploring a new bisimulation for HO, we show that HO can encode HOπ fully abstractly (up to typed contextual equivalence) more precisely and efficiently than the first-order session π-calculus (π). Overall, under session types, HOπ, HO, and π are equally expressive; however, HOπ and HO are more tightly related than HOπ and π.

show abstract

Musings on Encodings and Expressiveness

Cited by 31 publications

References 42 publications

Comparing Process Calculi Using Encodings

Comparing Process Calculi Using Encodings

On the Expressiveness of Symmetric Communication

On the Relative Expressiveness of Higher-Order Session Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About