In this tutorial we discuss various behavioural theories of processes. The central theme is that processes should be semantically equivalent unless there is some observation or test which distinguishes them. By choosing different notions of observations a range of behavioural theories is obtained. They include bisimulation equivalence, testing equivalence and a number of equivalences which distinguish concurrency from nondeterminism.

Key words

Concurrent Processes behavioural semantics testing process algebras 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Ab87]
    Abramsky, S., Observational Equivalence as a Testing Equivalence, TCS, 53, pp. 225–241, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AB84]
    Austry, D. and Boudol G., Algèbre de processus et synchronisation, TCS, 30, pp.91–131, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [AH88]
    Aceto, L. and Hennessy M., Towards Action-Refinement in Process Algebras, University of Sussex Technical Report, 1988Google Scholar
  4. [BK84]
    Bergstra, J. and Klop, J., Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication, Information and Control, 60Google Scholar
  5. [Ca87]
    Castellani, I., Distributed Bisimulations, Ph.D.Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1987Google Scholar
  6. [CH87]
    Hennessy, M. and Castellani, I., Distributed Bisimulations, University of Sussex Technical Report, 1987Google Scholar
  7. [DH83]
    DeNicola, R. and Hennesy, M., Testing Equivalences for Process, TCS, 34, pp.83–133,1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [GV87]
    van Glabbeek, R. and Vaandrager, F., Petri Net Models for Algebraic Theories of Concurrency, University of Aarhus, 1988Google Scholar
  9. [He83]
    Hennessy, M., Synchronous and Asynchronous Experiments on Processes, Information and Control, 59, pp.36–83, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [He88a]
    Hennessy, M., An Algebraic Theory of Processes, MIT Press, 1988Google Scholar
  11. [He88b]
    Hennessy, M., Axiomatising Finite Concurrent Processes, SIAM Journal of Computing, October 1988Google Scholar
  12. [Ho85]
    Hoare, C., Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice-Hall, 1985Google Scholar
  13. [Main88]
    Main, M., Trace, Failure and Testing Equivalences for Communicating Processes, IJPP, vol.16, No.5, pp 383–401Google Scholar
  14. [Mil80]
    Milner, R., A Calculus of Communicating Systems, LNCS,94,1980Google Scholar
  15. [Mil83]
    Milner, R., Synchrony and Asynchrony, TCS,25, pp.267–310,1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Mil88]
    Milner, R., Operational and Algebraic Semantics of Concurrent Processes, Technical Report ECS-LFCS-88-46, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  17. [NEL88]
    Nielson, M. Engberg, U. and Larsen, K.S., Partial Order Semantics for Concurrency, University of Aarhus, 1988Google Scholar
  18. [Ph85]
    Philipps, I., Refusal Testing, TCS,50, 1985Google Scholar
  19. [Plo81]
    Plotkin, G., A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, Lecture Notes, University of Aarhus, 1981Google Scholar
  20. [Wa87]
    Walker, D., Bisimulation and Divergence, Proceedings of LICS 88 conference, pp.186–192. Also Technical Report ECS-LFCS-87-29, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M Hennessy
    • 1
  1. 1.CSAIUniversity of SussexFalmer, BrightonUK

Personalised recommendations