Reward testing equivalences for processes
R van Glabbeek - Models, Languages, and Tools for Concurrent and …, 2019 - Springer
Models, Languages, and Tools for Concurrent and Distributed Programming …, 2019•Springer
May and must testing were introduced by De Nicola and Hennessy to define semantic
equivalences on processes. May-testing equivalence exactly captures safety properties, and
must-testing equivalence liveness properties. This paper proposes reward testing and
shows that the resulting semantic equivalence also captures conditional liveness properties.
It is strictly finer than both the may-and must-testing equivalence.
equivalences on processes. May-testing equivalence exactly captures safety properties, and
must-testing equivalence liveness properties. This paper proposes reward testing and
shows that the resulting semantic equivalence also captures conditional liveness properties.
It is strictly finer than both the may-and must-testing equivalence.
Abstract
May and must testing were introduced by De Nicola and Hennessy to define semantic equivalences on processes. May-testing equivalence exactly captures safety properties, and must-testing equivalence liveness properties. This paper proposes reward testing and shows that the resulting semantic equivalence also captures conditional liveness properties. It is strictly finer than both the may- and must-testing equivalence.
Springer
Showing the best result for this search. See all results