Probabilistic Testing Semantics - Semantics of Probabilistic Processes: An Operational Approach - page 99

In Definition 4.3 , we use resolving functions to model the behaviour of schedulers
or environments to resolve nondeterminism. The schedulers are powerful enough to
examine the structure of a probabilistic process. For certain applications one might
like to restrict the power of the schedulers [ 27 - 31 ], so as to obtain coarser testing
preorders or equivalences than those in Definition 4.4 . Then a natural question is:
to what extent should a scheduler be restricted? There are proposals for making
probabilistic or/and internal choice unobservable to the scheduler. But so far we
have not seen widely accepted criteria.
References
1. De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.: Testing equivalences for processes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34 ,
83-133 (1984)
2. Hennessy, M.: An Algebraic Theory of Processes. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
3. Yi, W., Larsen, K.G.: Testing probabilistic and nondeterministic processes. Proceedings of
the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 12th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and
Verification, IFIP Transactions, vol. C-8, pp. 47-61. North-Holland (1992)
4. Segala, R.: Testing probabilistic automata. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Concurrency Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1119, pp. 299-314. Springer,
Heidelberg (1996)
5. Hennessy, M.: Powerdomains and nondeterministic recursive definitions. Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 137,
pp. 178-193. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)
6. Abransky, S., Jung, A.: Domain Theory. Handbook of Logic and Computer Science, vol. 3,
pp. 1-168. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)
7. Winskel, G.: The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction. The MIT
Press, Cambridge (1993)
8. Deng, Y., van Glabbeek, R., Morgan, C.C., Zhang, C.: Scalar outcomes suffice for finitary
probabilistic testing. Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Programming. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4421, pp. 363-378. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
9. Puterman, M.L.: Markov Decision Processes. Wiley, New York (1994)
10. Larsen, K.G., Skou, A.: Bisimulation through probabilistic testing. Inf. Comput. 94 (1), 1-28
(1991)
11. Christoff, I.: Testing equivalences and fully abstract models for probabilistic processes.
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Concurrency Theory. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 458, pp. 126-140. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)
12. Jonsson, B., Ho-Stuart, C., Yi, W.: Testing and refinement for nondeterministic and probabilistic
processes. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-
Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 863, pp. 418-430.
Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
13. Kwiatkowska, M.Z., Norman, G.: A testing equivalence for reactive probabilistic processes.
Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 16 (2), 1-19 (1998)
14. Gregorio-Rodríguez, C., Núñez, M.: Denotational semantics for probabilistic refusal testing.
Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 22 , 111-137 (1999)
15. Cleaveland, R., Dayar, Z., Smolka, S.A., Yuen, S.: Testing preorders for probabilistic processes.
Inf. Comput. 154 (2), 93-148 (1999)
16. Núñez, M.: Algebraic theory of probabilistic processes. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 56 , 117-177
(2003)
17. Jonsson, B., Yi, W.: Compositional testing preorders for probabilistic processes. Proceedings
of the 10th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 431-441. Computer
Society Press (1995)