Breaking Symmetries

TL;DR

This paper revisits the proven difference in expressive power between extit{pi}-calculus with mixed choice and its subset, emphasizing the fundamental role of symmetry breaking in their distinctions, and formalizes this concept independently of leader election.

Contribution

It provides a new formalization of symmetry breaking in process calculi, re-proves known results, and explores how different notions of uniformity affect encodability.

Findings

Symmetry breaking is essential for distinguishing extit{pi}-calculus variants.

Different notions of uniformity influence the possibility of encoding between calculi.

Formalization clarifies the role of symmetry breaking beyond leader election.

Abstract

A well-known result by Palamidessi tells us that \pimix (the \pi-calculus with mixed choice) is more expressive than \pisep (its subset with only separate choice). The proof of this result argues with their different expressive power concerning leader election in symmetric networks. Later on, Gorla offered an arguably simpler proof that, instead of leader election in symmetric networks, employed the reducibility of incestual processes (mixed choices that include both enabled senders and receivers for the same channel) when running two copies in parallel. In both proofs, the role of breaking (initial) symmetries is more or less apparent. In this paper, we shed more light on this role by re-proving the above result - based on a proper formalization of what it means to break symmetries without referring to another layer of the distinguishing problem domain of leader election. Both Palamidessi and Gorla rephrased their results by stating that there is no uniform and reasonable encoding from \pimix into \pisep. We indicate how the respective proofs can be adapted and exhibit the consequences of varying notions of uniformity and reasonableness. In each case, the ability to break initial symmetries turns out to be essential.