References

  1. L. Aceto, B. Bloom & F.W. Vaandrager (1994): Turning SOS Rules into Equations. Information and Computation 111, pp. 1–52, doi:10.1006/inco.1994.1040.
  2. L. Aceto, W. Fokkink & C. Verhoef (1999): Handbook of Process Algebra, chapter Chapter 3: Structural Operational Semantics, pp. 197–292. Elsevier.
  3. S. Andova, S. Georgievska & N. Trčka (2012): Branching bisimulation congruence for probabilistic systems. Theoretical Computer Science 413, pp. 58–72, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2011.07.020.
  4. J.C.M. Baeten & E.P. de Vink (2004): Axiomatizing GSOS with Termination. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 60–61, pp. 323–351, doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2004.03.001.
  5. F. Bartels (2004): On Generalised Coinduction and Probabilistic Specification Formats. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  6. B. Bloom (1995): Structural operational semantics for weak bisimulations. Theoretical Computer Science 146, pp. 25–68, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(94)00152-9.
  7. B. Bloom, S. Istrail & A.R. Meyer (1995): Bisimulation can't be traced. Journal of the ACM 42, pp. 232–268, doi:10.1145/200836.200876.
  8. R. Bol & J.F. Groote (1996): The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. Journal of the ACM 43, pp. 863–914, doi:10.1145/234752.234756.
  9. V. Castiglioni, R. Lanotte & S. Tini (2014): A Specification Format for Rooted Branching Bisimulation. Fundamenta Informaticae 135, pp. 355–369, doi:10.3233/FI-2014-1128.
  10. P.R. D'Argenio, D. Gebler & M.D. Lee (2014): Axiomatizing bisimulation equivalences and metrics from probabilistic SOS rules. In: A. Muscholl: Proc. FoSSACS. LNCS 8412, pp. 289–303, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54830-7_19.
  11. P.R. D'Argenio & M.D. Lee (2012): Probabilistic transition system specification: Congruence and full abstraction of bisimulation. In: L. Birkedal: Proc. FOSSACS. LNCS 7213, pp. 452–466, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28729-9_30.
  12. C. Eisentraut, H. Hermanns, J. Krämer, A. Turrini & Lijun Zhang (2013): Deciding Bisimilarities on Distributions. In: K. Joshi, M. Siegle, M. Stoelinga & P.R. D'Argenio: Proc. QEST. LNCS 8054, pp. 72–88, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40196-1_6.
  13. W. Fokkink (1994): The tyft/tyxt Format Reduces to Tree Rules. In: M. Hagiya & J.C. Mitchell: Proc. TACS 1994. LNCS 789, pp. 440–453, doi:10.1007/3-540-57887-0_109.
  14. W. Fokkink (2000): Rooted Branching Bisimulation as a Congruence. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 60, pp. 13–37, doi:10.1006/jcss.1999.1663.
  15. W. Fokkink & C. Verhoef (1998): A Conservative Look at Operational Semantics with Variable Binding. Information and Computation 146, pp. 24–54, doi:10.1006/inco.1998.2729.
  16. R.J. van Glabbeek (2004): The Meaning of Negative Premises in Transition System Specifications II. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 60-61, pp. 229–258, doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2004.03.007.
  17. R.J. van Glabbeek (2005): On cool congruence formats for weak bisimulations. In: Dang Van Hung & M. Wirsing: Proc. ICTAC 2005. LNCS 3722, pp. 318–333, doi:10.1007/11560647_21.
  18. J.F. Groote (1993): Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theoretical Computer Science 118, pp. 263–299, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(93)90111-6.
  19. J.F. Groote & F. Vaandrager (1992): Structured Operational Semantics and Bisimulation as a Congruence. Information and Computation 100, pp. 202–260, doi:10.1016/0890-5401(92)90013-6.
  20. H. Hansson (1991): Time and probability in formal design of distributed systems. University of Uppsala.
  21. H. Hermanns & A. Turrini (2012): Deciding Probabilistic Automata Weak Bisimulation in Polynomial Time. In: D. D'Souza, T. Kavitha & J. Radhakrishnan: FSTTCS 2012 18. Dagstuhl, pp. 435–447.
  22. B. Klin (2009): Structural Operational Semantics for Weighted Transition Systems. In: J. Palsberg: Semantics and Algebraic Specification. LNCS 5700, pp. 121–139, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04164-8_7.
  23. B. Klin & V. Sassone (2013): Structural operational semantics for stochastic and weighted transition systems. Information and Computation 227, pp. 58–83, doi:10.1016/j.ic.2013.04.001.
  24. R. Lanotte & S. Tini (2009): Probabilistic bisimulation as a congruence. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10, pp. 1–48, doi:10.1145/1462179.1462181.
  25. M.D. Lee, D. Gebler & P.R. D'Argenio (2012): Tree rules in probabilistic transition system specifications with negative and quantitative premises. In: B. Luttik & M.A. Reniers: Proc. EXPRESS/SOS. EPTCS 89, pp. 115–130, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.89.9.
  26. M. Miculan & M. Peressotti (2014): GSOS for non-deterministic processes with quantitative aspects. In: N. Bertrand & L. Bortolussi: Proc. QAPL 2014. EPTCS 154, pp. 17–33, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.154.2.
  27. M.R. Mousavi, M.A. Reniers & J.F. Groote (2007): SOS formats and meta-theory: 20 years after. Theoretical Computer Science 373, pp. 238–272, doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2006.12.019.
  28. R. Segala (1995): Modeling and Verification of Randomized Distributed Real-Time Systems. MIT.
  29. R. Segala & N.A. Lynch (1995): Probabilistic simulations for probabilistic processes. Nordic Journal of Computing 2, pp. 250–273.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org