Document Open Access Logo

Concurrency Semantics for the Geiger-Paz-Pearl Axioms of Independence

Authors Sara Miner More, Pavel Naumov, Benjamin Sapp



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.CSL.2011.443.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.56 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Sara Miner More
Pavel Naumov
Benjamin Sapp

Cite AsGet BibTex

Sara Miner More, Pavel Naumov, and Benjamin Sapp. Concurrency Semantics for the Geiger-Paz-Pearl Axioms of Independence. In Computer Science Logic (CSL'11) - 25th International Workshop/20th Annual Conference of the EACSL. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 12, pp. 443-457, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2011)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2011.443

Abstract

Independence between two sets of random variables is a well-known relation in probability theory. Its origins trace back to Abraham de Moivre's work in the 18th century. The propositional theory of this relation was axiomatized by Geiger, Paz, and Pearl. Sutherland introduced a relation in information flow theory that later became known as "nondeducibility." Subsequently, the first two authors generalized this relation from a relation between two arguments to a relation between two sets of arguments and proved that it is completely described by essentially the same axioms as independence in probability theory. This paper considers a non-interference relation between two groups of concurrent processes sharing common resources. Two such groups are called non-interfering if, when executed concurrently, the only way for them to reach deadlock is for one of the groups to deadlock internally. The paper shows that a complete axiomatization of this relation is given by the same Geiger-Paz-Pearl axioms.
Keywords
  • independence
  • concurrency
  • information flow
  • axiomatization

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail