A Title For This

Manish Gaur, Rama Kant

Institute of Engineering and Technology,Lucknow (India)

Abstract
We Concurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
Algebra-Concurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraCon-currency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcur-rency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcurrency, Rout-ing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcurrency, Routing Cal-culi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
AlgebraConcurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling,
Keywords: Concurrency, Routing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Methods,Process
Algebra

1. Introduction
In recent years, formal methods [1], specif-
ically process algebra [2], are widely used for
R2 k
describing system behaviour and to prove the R3
l
correctness of modern distributed systems. p
Routing calculi [3] is a language, an elabo- 12 p p r
21
13 p
ration of asynchronous distributed -calculus [4]. R1 31 p
43

The stochastic extension of process alge-bras m p

[5] and probabilistic extension of process n p 34
14
o
algebras [6, 7] are developed to add quantifi- p R4
41
cation to process algebra models. new node
One of the key ingredients when modelling
s t
and verifying quantitative aspects of a sys-
tems behaviour is probability [7]. This can be Figure 1: A simple distributed network with routers
used to model many sources of uncertainty, for
example the time delay associated with

Preprint submitted to Elsevier January 26, 2017

transmitting data across a busy communica- *
S; T ::= Systems
tion channel. In GR, the new concept is hR i M Probabilistic Router
S T Concurrency
j J K
that the router has the probabilistic choices [R ]k;p n; m; v@c g Messages
for routing the message along communication
f
(new d) S New name
link between the routers. In real distributed M; N ::= " Identity
Nodes
networks Quality of Service (QoS) and perfor- n[P] Named processes
mance metrics (i.e. delay, jitter, packet loss, MjN Concurrency
(new d) M New name
latency, availability, utilization and through- 0 Identity
P; Q ::= Process terms
put etc.) are probabilistic in nature because of c?(x) P Input
uncertainty. These probabilities can be taken m!hv@ci Output
if v = u then P else Q Matching
from a probability distribution. In GR, the (new b) P Channel name creation
router decision to determine path from source newnode m with P in Q New node creation
to destination changes because of this prob- PjQ
m!hv@ci
Concurrency
m!hv@ci p Probabilistic choice
abilistic nature of metrics. So, now we can P Repetition
stop Identity
model more realistic distributed systems with ! Success
this probabilistic behaviour of router. We can
Figure 2: Syntax
also do performance analysis of distributed
networks with the consideration of probability.
In our model, the topology of routers is fixed
i.e. routers connectivity, c, is fixed. We as- pij to represent probability of output pro-
sume that router connectivity is bidirectional cess along communication link between
and each pair of routers is connected via some routers Ri and Rj. In our language we are
path. Essentially router connectivity is a con- using the set of probabilities provided by
nected undirected graph ( but not a clique of probability distribution, . We represent
a graph ). So, there may exist more than one the set of probabilities given by probabil-
path between the same pair of routers. A pro- ity distributionfor some router Ri by
cess, P , resides at a named node n which in (Ri) = fpij where Rj in Adj(Ri) for
turn is connected to router R. all Rjg and(Ri) = 1. For example, in
A simple distributed network of routers Figure 1 (R 1 ) = fp12; p13; p14g where
p +p
shown in Figure 1. There are four routers 12 13 + p14 = 1 , (R2) = fp21g
R1, R2, R3 and R4. The nodes k, l, m, n, where p21 = 1, (R3) = fp31; p34g where
o, r, s and t are connected to their respec- p31 + p34 = 1 and (R4) = fp41; p43g where
tive routers R1, R2, R3 and R4. We use p41 + p43 = 1.
the notation Adj(R) to represent the set of
adjacent routers of R in c. It is defined We use P BL [6], as specification for our
0 0
as Adj(R) = fR j (R; R ) 2 cg. The proposed calculus,GR. In the remaining paper
probability is assigned for output process Subsections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 discuss Syntax,
(i.e. message) along communication link Structural equivalence and Reduction seman-
between routers by the probability distribution tics of GR. In Section 2 we prove the reduc-
. We assume that probability distribution tion equivalence between our proposed calculi
, , is available for use. We use notation and its specification PBL [6]. Section 3 is the

2
conclusion.
1.1. Syntax
We use v; v1; v2; u; u1; u2; : : : to describe ei-
ther a name or a variable or a simple value. We
dont use tuples as values for simplicity. So, here
v; u; : : : are simple values, for example
integers,boolean etc. We use meta variables a; b;
c; : : : range over sets of channel names CN . We
use variables m; n; : : : range over set of node
names N N . We use R; R1; R2; : : :
range over set of router names RN . To repre-
sent the cost of communication, we use vari-
ables k; l; : : : which range over the set of in-
tegers. Probability of message hopping along
communication link between routers are rep-
0 (new d) M is the scoping mechanism of a name
resented through variables p; p ; : : : ; p1; p2 : : :
which range over [0; 1]. We assume that sets of
channel names, node names and router names
are disjoint from each other. There are three
syntactic categories in this language. These are
Systems, Nodes and Processes. The syn-tax of
this calculus is described in Figure 2. System
term hR iJMK represents the proba-bilistic router.
The superscript represents the probability
distribution. This probability distribution is used to
assign the probability to output process along
communication links be-tween routers. It exhibits
the probabilistic na-ture of the router. The
topology of the routers is fixed. The node M
located at router R. Concurrency, S j T , shows
the parallel com-position of systems S and T .
Message is de-
k;p
noted by [R] fn; m; v@cg. Message propa-
gate the value v along channel c from source
node n to destination node m. The process
at source node n to another process at desti-
nation node m can communicate along some
channel. Here, k represents the number of
hops (routers) the message has already trav-
elled across the path towards its destination.
3
p denotes the total probability of communica-
tion links, between the routers, the message
has already travelled across the path towards
its destination. (new d) S is scoping mecha-
nism for names at system level. A process can
declare a private channel or a new node name
at some router. In this language, we assume
that router names are not dynamically created.
So, d can not be a router name. The simplest
combinator, called the identity function does
nothing but return its argument. The identity for
system terms is denoted by ".
In node syntactic category, n[P] represents
the named processes. The process term P
resides at node name n. The concurrency for
nodes terms is denoted by M j N at any router.
at node. A process at a node may declare a
private channel however it is pos-sible to
export a node name or channel name to
another process located at a different node
through a value in the message. 0 is the iden-
tity for node terms.
In process terms, c?(x) P is a input pro-cess.
It receives a value v along the channel c then
execute P into which v has been substi-tuted,
v
P f =xg. Another process is output pro-cess, m!
hv@ci. Output process sends a value v to the
destination node m on channel c. At destination
node m, the value will eventually delivered to
an input process term on channel c. The test
for identity of simple values is done by
matching construct if v = u then P else Q. (new
b) P is scoping mechanism for names at
process level. A process may declare a private
channel to communicate within a node how-
ever it is possible to export a channel name to
another process at a different node through a
value in message. newnode m with P in Q
creates a new node at process level. A new
node m is created at some router and process
P is launched in it in parallel with process Q.
The success process ! is a test process [8].
*
Ex-ternal nodes can be used for run the test (st-extr) (new d)(P j Q) P j (new d)Q; if d 2= fn(P )
pro-cess. The node m[ ] is called external (st-com) PjQ QjP
(st-assoc) (P j Q) j R P j (Q j R)
node if no code or process defined for it. For (st-id) P j id P
exam-ple, hR iJn[T] j m[c?(x) !]K. Where c? (st-flip) (new c)(new d)P (new d)(new c)P
(st-new) (new d)P P; if d 2= fn(P )
(x) ! is a test process. The probabilistic
(st-new id) (new d)id id
choice between output processes is
Figure 3: Structural Equivalence (Standard)
represented by m!hv@ci p m!hv@ci.
In a system hR iJm[c?(x) P]K , if variable x
occurs in the sub-term P then all occur-rences
of x in the sub-term P are said to be bound. All
occurrences of variables which are not bound
in a term are said to be free. In GR we also *
(sp-std) standard axioms
have a binder for names; in a system term hR (sp-probout) m!hv@ci p m!hv@ci
0
m!hv@ci p0 m!hv@ci ; p = 1 p
iJm[(new a)P]K all occur-rences of name a are m!hv@ci m!hv@ci if p = 1
j

m!hv@ci P p

said to be bound in P . We use f n(P ) and bn(P

(sp-rep) P P
) to denote the set of all names which occur Figure 4: Structural Equivalence (Processes)
free and bound in P , respectively. Similarly, a
node name m in a term hR iJn[(new m)N]K; is
bound in all occur-rences of n in node N. In a
node term N which is defined as n[P], the free
names of N consist of free names of process P
S *
and n, more for-mally f n(N) = fng f n(P ). In (sn-std) standard axioms
(sn-stop) m[stop] 0
a system S defined as hR iJNK, the free (sn-inh) P Q
names of S is de- m[P ] m[Q]
S
(sn-extr) m[(new d)P] (new d)m[P]; if d 6= m
fined as f n(S) = fRg f n(P ). Similarly, in (sn-merge) m[P] j m[Q] m[P j Q]
k;p
a system term S defined as [R] fn; m; v@cg, f
S S S S Figure 5: Structural Equivalence (Nodes)
n(S) = fRg fng fmg ff n(v)g fcg,
S
if v 2 N N CN . All occurrences of a in a
system term (new a)S are said to be bound in
S.
*
1.2. Structural Equivalence (ss-std) standard axioms
(ss-inh) N S
We use a formal relation between the sys- R N R S
i h i
h 1 N R 2 S
tems called structural equivalence, intuitively to h i J K
hR h
i J
i
K h iJ K 6
J
(new d) R N N ; if d = R

represent the systems as same computa-tional (ss-extr) RJ (new d)

K K

entities. This is defined in a conven-tional way Figure 6: Structural Equivalence (Systems)

[4, 2, 3]. We use the notion to represent this
relation. Structural equivalence

4
is given in Figure 3,Figure 4,Figure 5 and
Fig-ure 6. *
(r-out)
0;1
c; B hR iJn[m!hv@ci j P] j NK ! c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j hR iJn[P] j NK
(r-bcom i)
1.3. Reduction Semantics f(R1; Rj)g 2 c
p1j > 0; p1j 2 (R1)
hR1 i(m) = fRjg
A configuration consists of a pair ( c; ; hRj i(v) "; v 2 NN
k;p
for all j=2,3,..
S) where c RN RN. The undirected graph c; B [R1] fn; m; v@cg j hRj i N j S !
p
fn; m; v @cg j JhR Kj fv R 1gi N j S

(RN, c) is connected. The additional no- c

f(R1; Rj)g 2 c
; B
j
[R ]
k+1;p 1j
JK
0 (r-bcom ii)
tation is S notin S, which means if S S 1 p1j > 0; p1j 2 (R1)
0 0 0
jS2 j:::jSn then S 6= Si such that Si Si hR1 i(m) = fRjg

for all i=1,2,3,...,n.

R
In a router Rconnectivity
R
hRj i(v) #; v 2 NN
k;p
for all j=2,3,..
c; B [R1] fn; m; v@cg j hRj i N j S !
c, Ri i+1 ::: k 1 k k+1;p p fn; m; v @cg j JhR Kj iN j S

c(r-msg del)j
1j

means fRi,Ri+1, . . . , Rk 1,Rkg 2 c for

; B [R ]

0
hR i(m) = fRg J K ; if k < k
routers Ri,Ri+1, . . . , Rk 1,Rk. We shall
0 0
k;p k ;p
c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j [R] fn; m; v@cg j S !
k;p
c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j S
use the notation path(Ri; Rk) to represent a hR i(m) = fRg 0 0 ; if k > k
0
k;p k ;p
path of routers, Ri ::: Rk between pair of c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j
0 0
k ;p
[R] fn; m; v@cg j S !
c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j S
routers Ri and Rk. The reduction seman-tics hR i(m) = fRg 0 0
k ;p
0
; if k = k and if p > p
0
k;p

of the systems are defined in terms of a c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j

k;p
[R] fn; m; v@cg j S !
k;p c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j S
binary relation ! between the configura- hR i(m) = fRg 0 0
k ;p
0
; if k = k and if p < p
0
k;p
tions where the cost of reduction is k and the c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j
0 0
k ;p
[R] fn; m; v@cg j S !

probability of reduction is p. For the purpose c; B [R]

(r-in)
fn; m; v@cg j S

of determining the path between the commu- hR i(m) = fRg; [R] fn; m; v@cg notin S for any l
l;p
k;p
nicating processes, routing table hR i is c; B [R] f
n; m; v@c
c;B hR i m[Pf v=xg] j N
g jh
R m[c?(x) P]
j S
iJ
j
N
Kj
S
!
k;p

avail-able at each router, R ( which is

J K
formally de-fined in the next paragraph). Figure 7: Reduction semantics (Contd....)
In a configuration c; B hR iJNK j S,
the named router table hR i is defined as
RN
a function hR i : N N ! 2 . If a node
name m belongs to the domain of the routing
table hR i then we use the notation hR i(m) # *
(r-newnode creation)
; m 2 N N . Similarly if the node name m c; B hR iJn[newnode m with P in Q]K !

does not belong to the domain of the routing c;

(r-match)
B (new m)(hR fm RgiJm[P] j n[Q]K)

table hR i then we use the notation hR i(m) " c; B hR iJn[if v = u then P else Q]K ! c; B hR iJn[P]K
(r-mismatch)
; m 2 N N . In this process algebra, a judge- c; B hR iJn[if v1 = v2 then P else Q]K ! c; B hR iJn[Q]K v1 6= v2
(r-struct)
k;p 0
ment c; B S ! c; B S would intuitively mean S
0
S ; c;
k;p
BS
0 k;p
! c;
0
BR ;R
0
R
0 c; BS ! c; BR
that a system S reduces to S where the cost (r-cntx)
k;p 0
c; B S1 ! c; B S1
of reduction is k and probabil-ity of reduction c; B S1 j S2 !
k;p
c;
0
B S1 j S2
is p. The reduction rules are described in c; B S2 j S1 !
k;p
c;
k;p
B S2 j S1
0
0
c; B (new d)S1 ! c; B (new d)S1
Figure 7 and Figure 8.
Now in Example 1 we see how the node name Figure 8: (Contd....)Reduction semantics
can also be send as value in the message

5
 R2 Further, by using reduction rule (r-out)
R3 p the configuration B j j j
p c; S1 S2 S3
3
p p p5 Q 0]
12
21 (new q)( R q R q[m! q@c s[Q] )
1 5
3
31
p 3
qm
0;1 h 4
q
f
c S
4gi h ij ;
j S
j
R1 R4 [R4] f ; ; @ gj 5 reduces to c B1 j
m p s S
j
2
S
3 (new )( 4 J 4 giJ [ 0]
j
[ ] K )K
15 5
o n q
[R4 ]j fq; m; q@c h g j S f5 . j

0;1
q R q R qQ sQ

p 51
R5 45 new node We have hR4 i(m) = fR3; R5g. We know
that q is a new node and not known to R4; R5
t i.e. hR3 i(q) "; q 2 N N and hR5 i(q) "; q 2
NN. By reduction rules (r-bcom i) and
Figure 9: A simple distributed network with routers (r-struct), the configuration
(new node creation) c; B S1 j S2 j S3 j
(new q)( R q R q[Q0] s[Q] )
0
;
1 f j 4gi j h4 f
N j
[R 4 ] q; m; q@cg reduces q
S
5 to
S R
to processes between nodes. We also see the c; B S1 j 2 j h R3 fJ 3 gi K 3 j
(new q)( R q R q[Q0] s[Q] )
1;

new node creation. 0:7 f hf 4 j 4gi1;0:3 f j g j

R q; m; q c R q; m; q@c
g j

[ 5 ]@ [ 3 ] J K
f gi
Example: 1. The systems S1, S2, S3, S4 and h 5 5 [ ?( K
J K
1 J
1

R q R td x) Q]

S5 as below We have hR3 i(m) = fR1g and hR5 i(m) =

S
1 R i m[c?(x) t! x@d ] n[N] o[O] f R g where h R i (q) " ; q 2 N N . By use of
4 h 1 J [ K
4
h ij j (r-bcom i) and (r-struct), the configu-
S2 hR2 i N2 ration
S N
3 R3 J 3 K
c;
S h R iJ s newnode q with P in Q] h i i j j j
B
j
S K h
h R5
i t[d ?(x) Q]
m[c?(x) t! ] n[N] o[O] S2
5

R
1 x@d

J
where P m! q@c Q0 h f gi j
[
K
5] J K 3
h iR3 q R
3
N
3 K
(newJ q)( R4 q R4 q[Q0] s[Q] )
1;
0:
h ij h 7 h [ ?
f gi
1;0:3 j K
j
The new
f
( J
node q is created at node s and this 5
5gi

J K R q; m; q@c [R ] q; m; q@c
new node q send to process at node m. f g j f g j
R q Rt d x) Q]
So first by an application of reduces to B c;

R K n[N
(r-newnode creation), we get configu- R1 q 1 J m[c?(x) t! x@d ] ] o[O]
ration h f gi h i j j j
hR fq
S2 j 3 R 3gi N3 K j
B
c ; S1
j S2
j S3
j 1 )( q
J
R
4 q R
[ q
J Q s
] Q
) K
 2
;
0
:
4
R s[newnode q with P in Q] S 9 h f gi2;0:18 j j
h
4
i B jj j jh
5
5 f
[R ]
f 5gi
q; m; q@c
[ ?(
[R1]
J f
q; m; q@c
Kg j
reduces to gi S1 c; S 2 j S3 R q R t d x) Q]
J
q[P] s Q ] ) S5
h f j

(new q)( R4 q R4 Now messages reached at destination router

i f R1 g . So,K the duplicate mes-
K[

By the use of (r-struct) we get j h

j i.e.
J
R1 (m) =
B j

c; S1 J S2 K S3 sages are deleted by (r-msg del) and we

(new q)( R q R q[m! q@c Q0] s[Q] )get

S5 h 4 f 4giJ h ij jK j c; B

6
 R q R m c?(x) t! x@d ] n[N] o[O] R q R td x Q
h1 f 1 gi [ h i j j j h 5
f
5 gi [ ?( ) ]
S2 2;0:49 j hhR3 fq R3gi N3 j
q)( R q R q[Q0] s[Q] ) K
f gi j j

(new
f
J 4
g
4
jh
Now, we i f J
g K
came to know by routing table
h i

[R1 ] q; m; q@c
(t) = R4 and further R4 (t) = J K R3
R5 q R5 t d ?( x) Q]
h f gi f g

(r
J K R5 . Let q is the node name but known to
[
in) R R q ;q

By using - , value is delivered to input R4 and 5 i.e. Where and h 4 i( ) # 2

c?(x) ,Jat node s we get following re- ;
NN h 5i R (q) ; q2 N N . Hence by the use
process,
#ii , K

gi
duction of (r-bcom ). 3;0:084 j j j
R1 q R1 J m[] n[N] o[O] K
1;0:2
Bh f

h c; 1gi [ h i j j B c; f
R q R
j
m c?(x) t! x@d ] n[N] o[O] j m t q d f gi m t q d j
h
f gi j h

S R N
2 R 3q 3 3 S2 R 3q R3 N3
)
0
(new2;
( J4 4 [ 0] [ ] ) K(new q)( R4 q R4 q[Q ] s[Q] )
f
0:
49 q hR f g
q R gi q Q j sQ
j
j
h f gi
h f gi j j
[R1 ]
h 5
f
q; m; q@c 5 gi J
J K R
K 5
By the use of (r-
q R5 t[d?(x) Q] J J K ), we get
K

R q R t[d?(x) Q] msg del

2;0:49
B
h fq J j
m[] n[N]
j o[O] gi j
c; B c; R 1 R
1 K
1;
0:
! 2
h f gi j h i j f gj jh f gi j
S 0
J
R1 q R1 m[t! q@d K] n[N ] o[O] [R 5 ] m; t; q@d S2 R3 q R3 N3

2 j hR3 fq R3gi N3 j (new q)( R4 q R4 J q[Q ] s[Q] ) K

q R q R 4 q Q 0]s Q ] ) R h f gi j
(new )( J 4 [ K R q 5 J Kj
t[d?(x) Q]
f j j h f gi J (r-in), K c ;
[ 5

hR f hq R5 t[d?(x) Q]
gi
J K gi
duction rule
of
B application re-

5 J K Now by an J K
this node name q further send to pro- h 1 1f;0:2
q R
R1
gi
m[]
j
n[N]
j
o[O]
j
Now, J K
f gi j
[R ] gj
S
jh f
R N
cess at node t by output process t!hq@di at 5 m; t; q@d 2 R3 q 3 3

[
0
node m. So by using (r-out) (new q
)( Jh R
4 f4 q R
gi K [1;0:2
] j] sQ
) j
h f gi !

h c; 1
f 1gi h i j j
B R5 c; B R1 q
q R5 t[d?(x) Q] R1
J [] J K [ ] [
K
]

Rq R m[t! q@d ] n[N] o[O] m nN oO

S2 j hR q R 3gi N 3 j S2 q h R 3f N 3
gi j j j
5 J K 5 J K
f J
3 R3 K

(new q R q R
)(
J 4
4 qQ
[
0]s Q [ K
] ) jh (new
f q)( R4
gi q R4
j J q[Q0] s[Q] )K
h f gi j j

hR fq 5
R gi t[d?(x) Q] reduces to h R
f q
h t[Q
f qx g = ]
gi j j
0;1 f gi j j j
R5

J [ K
c; f B R1 gj 1 [] ] gi [ ] j J K
[R ] S R q R3 N 3 So, we have explained the reduction seman-
jh f

m; t; q@d 2
(new
1
q)(
J
hR4 f K
R4 gi [ 0 ] j [ ] )
K j tic with the help of Example 1.
J K
Further, we

h f giq qQ s Q (t) =
q R5 R5 show that reductions are preserved upto struc-
routing table R

t[d?(x) Q] J K
K
f Now, we know by J h 1i tural equivalence. This is formally stated and
g
3
R ; R5 . J
Let q is the node name but K proved in the following theorem:
known to R 3 and R 5 i.e. h R 3 i (q) # ; q 2
N N ; hR5 i(q) #; q 2 N N and hence by the Theorem: 1. If S1 S2 and c; B S1 !
0 0
use of (r-bcom ii). c; B S1 then there exist S2 such that
0 0 0
c;
1;0:2
B h R q R1 m[] j n[N] j o[O] K j
1
f gi
1;0:3
c; B S2 ! c; B S2 s.t. S1 S2 .
[R ] j [R ]
J

5 fm; t; q@dg 3 fm; t; q@dg j In this theorem, we prove that reduction se-
S2 j h R3 fq R3 gi N3 j mantics is preserved under structural equiva-
0
(new q)( hR q R4 q[Q ] j s[Q] ) j lence.
4
f
gi J K

J K
7
1.4. Well-formed Configuration Additionally, well-formedness of configura-
In our calculi, how can we say that reduc- tions is also preserved under reduction
tion semantics is consistent? How will we en- seman-tics as given in following theorem:
sure that there is no inconsistency in resulting
configuration? We can say if a configuration is Theorem: k;p
2. If c; B S is a well-formed configuration and
0 0
c; B S ! c; B S then c; B S is also well-formed.
coherent before we apply a reduction and it re-
mains coherent after the reduction as well. We
list the minimal properties which will ensure 1.5. A simple probabilistic broadcast lan-
coherence. These all properties together get us guage
the notion of well- formed configurations which
PBL [6], is a process calculus developed
are summarized in Definition 1.
to model high level wireless systems, where
Definition: 1 (well formed configuration). the topology of a network is described by a
graph. The calculus enjoys features which
1. c; B S is a well-formed system. are proper of wireless networks, namely
2. c; B (new n)S is well-formed if c; B S is a well-formed broadcast com-munication and probabilistic
system.
3. c; B hR iJNK j S is well-formed if behaviour. We briefly discuss the syntax and
(a)
(b)
c; B S is well-formed.
hR i does not occur in S.(unique router name) reduction se-mantics of P BL in subsection
(c)
8r 2 fn(N) such that r 2 NN where NN is the set 1.6 and subsec-tion 1.7, respectively.
of node names, if hR i(r) = fRg then 8hR1 i 2 S,
hR1 i(r) 6= fR1g.(unique node name)
(d)
8r 2 fn(N) such that r 2 NN; hRi(r) #
k;p 1.6. Syntax
4. c; B [R] fn; m; v@cg j S well-formed if
0
(a)
c;0B S is well-formed and S hR iJNK j S for some We now briefly discuss syntax of P BL as
S
(b)
8r 2 fmg
S
fn(v) such that r 2 NN; hRi(r) # given in [6]. The language for system terms,
c;B S is well-formed if S is of the form
(c)

k1;p1 k2;p2 ranged over by M; N; L; ::: is given in Fig-ure

S1 j S2 where S1 [R] fn; m; v@cg j [R] fn;
m; v@cg j [R]
k3;p3
fn; m; v@cg j ::: for
10. Basically a system term consists of a
R1; R2; R3; ... for some S2. collection of named nodes, ranged over m; n; l;
(d) there exists path path(R1; R) = R1 R2
::: at each of which there is some run-ning
: R for some R1; R2; ::: such that hR1 i(n) =
fR1g and hR1 i(m) = fR2g ... where k = code (or process). The syntax for this code is a
j path(R1; R) j 1 straightforward instance of a stan-dard process
5. A configuration c; B S is well-formed if hR1 i; hRj i occur
in S and hR1 i(m) = fRjg then hRji(m) # for all j = 2; 3; calculus. Process c?(x):P waits to receive
4:::.
6. In any well-formed configuration c; B S for every pair of
some value along channel c; when a value v is
node n and m such that hRn i(n) = fRng and hRm i(m) = v
received, the process evolves in f =xgPi; the
fRmg where Rn; Rm are in S there exists a path Rn Rm
such that latter is defined as process P , where all the
hRn i(m) = fR1g; hR1 i(m) = fR2g; :::; hRm i(m) = fRmg
free occurrences of variable x have been
replaced by value v. Process c!hei:P first
We have following lemma to show the well- evaluates a closed expression e to some value
formedness of configurations is preserved upto v; then this value is sent along channel c, and
structural equivalence of its systems: the process above evolves in P . Here e is
Lemma: 1. Suppose S T then c; B S is well-formed if and some expression from a decidable theory. Pro-
only if c; B T is well-formed. cess :P performs some internal activity, thus
evolving in P . Probabilistic process P p Q

8
 M; N ::= Nodes (r-struct)
n[s] Named processes 0 0
M M ; BM ! ;
MjN Concurrency BM !
0 Identity
(r-bcast)
Q
* JeK = v 8i 2 I: ` m ! ni rcv(M; c) 8 2 nodes(N): ` m 9 n mJc!hei:P + QK i2I
P; Q ::= (Probabilistic)Process jniJ(c?(x):Pi) + QiK j M j N !
S Q v
* Pp P probabilistic choice P(mJP K j i2I niJf =xgPiK j M j N)
S; T ::= ):P states (r-tau)
receive
c

?(x c B m[ :P + Q] j M ! P(m[P] j M)
c!hei:P broadcast
S+T choice Figure 11: Reduction semantics of PBL
if b then S else T branch
:P pre-emption
0 terminate
! :0 success
transmission range.
Figure 10: Syntax of PBL Rule (r-tau) is trivial; it models the
capa-bility of a node to perform an
internal action without affecting any other
behaves as P with probability p, while it be- node in the net-work.
haves as Q with probability 1 p. The suc- Finally, rule (r-struct) establishes that
cess process ! is a test process [8]. reductions are defined modulo structural
External nodes can be used for run the test equivalence.
process. The node m[ ] is called external
node if no code or process defined for it. 2. Equivalence of GR with its specification
We shall now try to establish an equiva-
1.7. Reduction Semantics
lence of GR with its specification, P BL [6]. We
In this section we discuss reduction seman- will show that both languages, GR and P BL,
tics of P BL as given in [6]. In P BL processes are reduction equivalent after abstract-ing
are interpreted as probability distributions of away the details of routers and paths from GR.
states; such an interpretation is encoded by Firstly, we define a function, F, in Defi-nition 2
the function P(:) defined below: over GR system to map to a system in P BL for
P(S) = S the purpose of abstraction of routers.
P((P1p P2)) = p:P(P 1) + (1p:P(P 2)) Definition: 2. We define a function F : GRY ! P BLY ,
Rule (r-bcast) models local broadcast where GRY and P BLY are sets of GR system terms and P BL
system terms respectively, as follows:
communication. When a node m broadcasts a F(") = 0
F(hR k;ip M) = M
value v along channel c in a network c B M, F([R] fn; m; v@cg) = n[m!hv@ci p m!hv@ci]
J
d) S) = (new d) (S )

then the only nodes which are affected by the F

((new j
K F jF

communication are only those which are in the F

(S T) = (S) F(T )
sender?s range and are waiting to receive a This function, F, can be applied to S in GR
value along channel c. All the other nodes in and T in P BL upto structural equivalence.
the network are not affected by the broad-cast Now we are ready to state following two lem-
performed by node m. This is because either mas to establish reduction semantic equiva-
they are not waiting to detect a value along lence between GR and P BL:
channel c, or they are not in the sender?s

9
Theorem: 3. In GR, if a well formed config- [2] R. Milner, Communicating and mobile
k;p
uration c; B S1 does a reduction c; B S1 ! systems: The -Calculus, Cambridge
c; B S2 for some k and p and F(S 1) = T1 University Press, 1999.
where T1 is a P BL system term then either
there exist a P BL system T2 s.t. [3] M. Gaur, A routing calculus: Towards
T1 ! T2 and F(S2) T2 or F(S2) T1 formalising the cost of computation in
a distributed computer network, Phd,
Theorem: 4. If a P BL system T1 does a re-
0 Infor-matics, University of Sussex,
duction T1 ! T2 and F(S1) = T1 such that
0 U.K. (De-cember 2008).
T1 T1 where S1 is a system term over a
well formed configuration c; B S1 in GR [4] M. Hennessy., A distributed Pi-Calculus.,
k;p
then c; B S1 ! c; B S2 for some k and p Cambridge University Press, 2007.
0 0
such that F(S2) T2 where T2 T2.
By Theorem 3 and Theorem 4, system [5] M. Gaur, R. Kant, A survey on pro-cess
in both GR and P BL are proven to match algebraic stochastic modelling of large
upto structural equivalence under distributed systems for its perfor-
reduction seman-tics. mance analysis, in: 3rd International
Conference on Eco-friendly Computing
3. Conclusion and Communication Systems
SinceConcurrency, Routing Calculi, (ICECCS), 2014, pp. 206211.
Stochastic Modelling, Formal Meth- doi:10.1109/ Eco-friendly.2014.49.
ods,Process AlgebraConcurrency, Rout-ing
[6] A. Cerone, Matthew, A simple probabilis-
Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal
tic broadcast language, Tech. rep., Foun-
Methods,Process AlgebraConcurrency, Rout-
dations and Methods Research Group,
ing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal
Trinity College Dublin (2012).
Methods,Process AlgebraConcurrency, Rout-
ing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal [7] G. Norman, D. Parker, Quantitative
Methods,Process AlgebraConcurrency, Rout- ver-ification: Formal guarantees for
ing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal timeli-ness, reliability and performance,
Methods,Process AlgebraConcurrency, Rout- Tech. rep., The London Mathematical
ing Calculi, Stochastic Modelling, Formal Society and the Smith Institute (2014).
Methods,Process AlgebraConcurrency
Funding: This work was supported by World Bank TEQIP-II [8] M. H. Andrea Cerone, Modelling proba-
project(2013-16). bilistic wireless networks, in: H. Giese, G.
Rosu (Eds.), Formal Techniques for
References Distributed Systems, Vol. 7273 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Springer
[1] J. Woodcock, P. G. Larsen, J. Bicarregui, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 135151.
J. Fitzgerald, Formal methods: Prac-tice
URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-
and experience, ACM Comput. Surv. 41 642-30793-5_9
(4) (2009) 19:119:36.

10