[Abr87] S., Abramsky. Observation equivalence as a testing equivalence. Theoretical Computer Science, 53:225–241, 1987.Google Scholar

[Abr10] S., Abramsky. Coalgebras, chu spaces, and representations of physical systems. In 25th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'10), 411–420. IEEE Computer Society, 2010.Google Scholar

[ABS99] S., Abiteboul, P., Buneman and D., Suciu. Data on the Web: from Relations to Semistructured Data and XML. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.Google Scholar

[ABV94] L., Aceto, B., Bloom and F., Vaandrager. Turning SOS rules into equations. Information and Computation, 111(1):1–52, 1994.Google Scholar

[AC93] R. M., Amadio and L., Cardelli. Subtyping recursive types. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15(4):575–631, 1993.Google Scholar

[Acz77] P., Aczel. An introduction to inductive definitions. In Jon, Barwise, ed., Handbook of Mathematical Logic, 739–782. North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar

[Acz88] P., Aczel. Non-well-founded Sets. CSLI lecture notes; no. 14, 1988.Google Scholar

[AFV01] L., Aceto, W., Fokkink and I. C., Verhoef. Structural operational semantics. In A., Ponse, J., Bergstra and S., Smolka, ed., Handbook of Process Algebra, 197–292. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar

[AFvGI04] L., Aceto, W., Fokkink, R. J., Glabbeek and A., Ingólfsdóttir. Nested semantics over finite trees are equationally hard. Information and Computation, 191(2):203–232, 2004.Google Scholar

[AG98] M., Abadi and A. D., Gordon. A bisimulation method for cryptographic protocols. In C., Hankin, ed., ESOP'98: European Symposium on Programming, volume 1381 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12–26. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar

[AGR88] E., Astesiano, A., Giovini and G., Reggio. Generalized bisimulation in relational specifications. In STACS'88: Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 294 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 207–226. Springer Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar

[AH92] L., Aceto and M., Hennessy. Termination, deadlock, and divergence. J. ACM, 39(1):147–187, 1992.Google Scholar

[AI08] L., Aceto and A., Ingólfsdóttir. On the expressibility of priority. Inf. Process. Lett., 109(1):83–85, 2008.Google Scholar

[AILS07] L., Aceto, A., Ingólfsdóttir, K., Guldstrand Larsen and J., Srba. Reactive Systems: Modelling, Specification and Verification. Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

[AIS12] L., Aceto, A., Ingólfsdóttir. and J., Srba. The algorithmics of bisimilarity. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[AV93] S., Abramsky and S., Vickers. Quantales, observational logic and process semantics. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 3(2):161–227, 1993.Google Scholar

[AvGFI96] L., Aceto, R. J., Glabbeek, W., Fokkink and A., Ingólfsdóttir. Axiomatizing prefix iteration with silent steps. Information and Computation, 127(1):26–40, 1996.Google Scholar

[Bas96] T., Basten. Branching bisimilarity is an equivalence indeed!Inf. Process. Lett., 58(3):141–147, 1996.Google Scholar

[BB89] T., Bolognesi and E., Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. In P. H. J., Eijk, C. A., Vissers and M., Diaz, eds., The Formal Description Technique LOTOS. North Holland, 1989.Google Scholar

[BBK87a] J. C. M., Baeten, J. A., Bergstra and J. W., Klop. On the consistency of Koomen's fair abstraction rule. Theoretical Computer Science, 51:129–176, 1987.Google Scholar

[BBK87b] J. C. M., Baeten, J. A., Bergstra and J. W., Klop. Ready-trace semantics for concrete process algebra with the priority operator. Comput. J., 30(6):498–506, 1987.Google Scholar

[BC04] Y., Bertot and P., Casteran. Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq'Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. EATCS Series. Springer Verlag, 2004.Google Scholar

[BDHS96] P., Buneman, S. B., Davidson, G. G., Hillebrand and D., Suciu. A query language and optimization techniques for unstructured data. In H. V., Jagadish and I. S., Mumick, eds., Proc. ACM Int. Conf. on Management of Data, 505–516. ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar

[BDP99a] M., Boreale, R., Nicola and R., Pugliese. Proof techniques for cryptographic processes. In 14th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'99), 157–166. IEEE Computer Society, 1999.Google Scholar

[BDP99b] M., Boreale, R., Nicola and R., Pugliese. Basic observables for processes. Information and Computation, 149(1):77–98, 1999.Google Scholar

[BG96] R. N., Bol and J. F., Groote. The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications. J. ACM, 43:863–914, 1996.Google Scholar

[BGMM99] E., Bertino, G., Guerrini, I., Merlo and M., Mesiti. An approach to classify semi-structured objects. In ECOOP'99: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, volume 1628 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 416–440. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar

[BH97] M., Brandt and F., Henglein. Coinductive axiomatization of recursive type equality and subtyping. In R., Hindley, ed., TLCA'97: Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, volume 1210 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 63–81. Springer-Verlag, April 1997.Google Scholar

[BHR84] S. D., Brookes, C. A. R., Hoare and A. W., Roscoe. A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM, 31(3):560–599, 1984.Google Scholar

[BIM95] B., Bloom, S., Istrail and A. R., Meyer. Bisimulation can't be traced. J. ACM, 42(1):232–268, 1995.Google Scholar

[BK84] J. A., Bergstra and J. W., Klop. Process algebra for synchronous communication. Information and Computation, 60:109–137, 1984.Google Scholar

[BK86] J. A., Bergstra and J. W., Klop. Verification of an alternating bit protocol by means of process algebra. In Proc. Int. Spring School on Mathematical Methods of Specification and Synthesis of Software Systems '85, volume 215, 9–23. Springer Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar

[BKO87] J. A., Bergstra, J. W., Klop and E.-R., Olderog. Failures without chaos: a process semantics for fair abstraction. In M., Wirsing, ed., IFIP Formal Description of Programming Concepts – III, pages 77–101. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1987.Google Scholar

[BKO88] J. A., Bergstra, J., Willem Klop and E.-R., Olderog. Readies and failures in the algebra of communicating processes. SIAM J. Comput., 17(6):1134–1177, 1988.Google Scholar

[Blo89] B., Bloom. Ready Simulation, Bisimulation, and the Semantics of CCS-like Languages. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.

[BM96] J., Barwise and L., Moss. Vicious Circles: on the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena. CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information), 1996.Google Scholar

[Bou89] G., Boudol. Towards a lambda calculus for concurrent and communicating systems. In TAPSOFT'89: Theory and Practice of Software Development, volume 351 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 149–161, Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar

[BPS01] J., Bergstra, A., Ponse and S., Smolka, eds. Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar

[BR84] S. D., Brookes and A. W., Roscoe. An improved failures model for communicating processes. In S. D., Brookes, A. W., Roscoe and G., Winskel, eds., Seminar on Concurrency, volume 197 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 281–305. Springer Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar

[Bri99] E., Brinksma. Cache consistency by design. Distrib. Comput., 12(2/3):61–74, 1999.Google Scholar

[BRV01] P., Blackburn, M., Rijke and Y., Venema. Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

[BS98] M., Boreale and D., Sangiorgi. Bisimulation in name-passing calculi without matching. In Proc. 13th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'98), 411–420. IEEE, Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar

[BvG87] J. C. M., Baeten and R. J., Glabbeek. Another look at abstraction in process algebra (extended abstract). In T., Ottmann, ed., ICALP'87: Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 267 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 84–94. Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar

[Cas01] I., Castellani. Process algebras with localities. In A., Ponse, J., Bergstra and S., Smolka, eds., Handbook of Process Algebra, 945–1045. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar

[CC79] P., Cousot and R., Cousot. Constructive versions of Tarski's fixed point theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 81(1):43–57, 1979.Google Scholar

[CH93] R., Cleaveland and M., Hennessy. Testing equivalence as a bisimulation equivalence. Formal Asp. Comput., 5(1):1–20, 1993.Google Scholar

[CHM93] S., Christensen, Y., Hirshfeld and F, Moller. Decomposability, decidability and axiomatisability for bisimulation equivalence on basic parallel processes. In Proc. 8th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'93), 386–396. IEEE Computer Society, 1993.Google Scholar

[Chr93] S., Christensen. Decidability and Decomposition in Process Algebras. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, 1993.

[Coq94] T., Coquand. Infinite objects in type theory. In H., Barendregt and T., Nipkow, eds., 1st Int. Workshop TYPES, volume 806 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 62–78. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar

[DD91] P., Darondeau and P., Degano. About semantic action refinement. Fundam. Inform., 14(2):221–234, 1991.Google Scholar

[De87] R., Nicola. Extensional equivalences for transition systems. Acta Informatica, 24:211–237, 1987.Google Scholar

[Den07] Y., Deng. A simple completeness proof for the axiomatisations of weak behavioural equivalences. Bulletin of the EATCS, 93:207–219, 2007.Google Scholar

[DH84] R., Nicola and R., Hennessy. Testing equivalences for processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 34:83–133, 1984.Google Scholar

[DP02] B. A., Davey and H. A., Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

[DS85] R., Simone. Higher level synchronising devices in MEIJE-SCCS. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:245–267, 1985.Google Scholar

[DV95] R., Nicola and F. W., Vaandrager. Three logics for branching bisimulation. J. ACM, 42(2):458–487, 1995.Google Scholar

[DvGHM08] Y., Deng, R. J., Glabbeek, M., Hennessy and C., Morgan. Characterising testing preorders for finite probabilistic processes. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 4(4), 2008.Google Scholar

[Fio93] M., Fiore. A coinduction principle for recursive data types based on bisimulation. In Proc. 8th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'93), 110–119. IEEE Computer Society, 1993.

[Fou98] C., Fournet. The Join-Calculus: a Calculus for Distributed Mobile Programming. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique, 1998.

[Gim96] E., Giménez. Un Calcul de Constructions Infinies et son Application á la Verification des Systemes Communicants. Ph.D. thesis 96-11, Laboratoire de l'Informatique du Parallélisme, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, December 1996.

[GK03] E., Grädel and S., Kreutzer. Will deflation lead to depletion? On non-monotone fixed point inductions. In Proc. 18th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2003), 158–167. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.Google Scholar

[Gla88] R. J., Glabbeek. De semantiek, eindige, sequentiële processen met interne acties, syllabus processemantieken, deel 2 (in Dutch). Draft, 1988.

[Gla90] R. J., Glabbeek. Comparative concurrency semantics and refinement of actions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1990.

[Gla91] R. J., Glabbeek. Characterisation GSOS congruence. Posting in the concurrency mailing list, May 1991.

[Gla93a] R. J., Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum II (the semantics of sequential systems with silent moves). In E., Best, ed., CONCUR'93: Concurrency Theory, volume 715. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar

[Gla93b] R. J., Glabbeek. A complete axiomatization for branching bisimulation congruence of finite-state behaviours. In A. M., Borzyszkowski and S., Sokolowski, eds., Proc. 18th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS'93), volume 711 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 473–484. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar

[Gla93c] R. J., Glabbeek. Full abstraction in structural operational semantics (extended abstract). In M., Nivat, C., Rattray, T., Rus and G., Scollo, eds., Proc. References 239 3rd Conf. on AlgebraicMethodology and Software Technology (AMAST '93), Workshops in Computing, 75–82. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar

[Gla01a] R. J., Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum I. In A., Ponse, J., Bergstra and S., Smolka, eds., Handbook of Process Algebra, 3–99. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar

[Gla01b] R. J., Glabbeek. What is branching time semantics and why to use it? In G., Paun, G., Rozenberg and A., Salomaa, eds., Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 469–479. World Scientific, 2001.Google Scholar

[Gla05] R. J., Glabbeek. A characterisation of weak bisimulation congruence. In A., Middeldorp, V., Oostrom, F., Raamsdonk and R. C., Vrijer, eds., Processes, Terms and Cycles: Steps on the Road to Infinity, Essays Dedicated to Jan Willem Klop, on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, volume 3838 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 26–39. Springer Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar

[Gro91] J. F., Groote. Process Algebra and Structured Operational Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1991.

[Gro93] J. F., Groote. Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theoretical Computer Science, 118(2):263–299, 1993.Google Scholar

[GV92] J. F., Groote and F. W., Vaandrager. Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. Information and Computation, 100:202–260, 1992.Google Scholar

[GW96] R. J., Glabbeek and W. P., Weijland. Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM, 43(3):555–600, 1996. An extended abstract appeared in Information Processing89, IFIP 11th World Computer Congress, 1989, 613–618.Google Scholar

[HH06] P., Hancock and P., Hyvernat. Programming interfaces and basic topologyAnn. Pure Appl. Logic, 137(1–3):189–239, 2006.Google Scholar

[Hen88] M., Hennessy. Algebraic Theory of Processes. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988.Google Scholar

[HJ99] Y., Hirshfeld and M., Jerrum. Bisimulation equivalence is decidable for normed process algebra. In J., Wiedermann, P., Emde Boas and M., Nielsen, eds., ICALP'99: Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 1644 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 412–421. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar

[HM85] M., Hennessy and R., Milner. Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. J. ACM, 32:137–161, 1985.Google Scholar

[HMU06] J. E., Hopcroft, R., Motwani and J. D., Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (3rd Edn.). Addison-Wesley, 2006.Google Scholar

[Hoa85] C. A. R., Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar

[HP80] M., Hennessy and G. D., Plotkin. A termmodel for CCS. In P., Dembinski, ed., Proc. 9th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS'80), volume 88 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 261–274. Springer Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar

[JR03] A., Jeffrey and J., Rathke. Contextual equivalence for higher-order pi-calculus revisited. In Proc. MFPS XIX, volume 83 of ENTCS. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar

[KW06] V., Koutavas and M., Wand. Small bisimulations for reasoning about higher-order imperative programs. In J. G., Morrisett and S. L., Peyton Jones, eds., Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 141–152, 2006.Google Scholar

[Len98] M., Lenisa. Themes in Final Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, Università di Pisa, 1998.

[LG09] X., Leroy and H., Grall. Coinductive big-step operational semantics. Information and Computation, 207(2):284–304, 2009.Google Scholar

[LJWF02] D., Lacey, N. D., Jones, E., Wyk and C. C., Frederiksen. Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic. In 29th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 283–294, 2002.

[LM92] K. G., Larsen and R., Milner. A compositional protocol verification using relativized bisimulation. Information and Computation, 99(1):80–108, 1992.Google Scholar

[LS91] K. G., Larsen and A., Skou. Bisimulation through probabilistic testing. Information and Computation, 94(1):1–28, 1991. Preliminary version in POPL'89, 344–352, 1989.Google Scholar

[LvO05] B., Luttik and V., Oostrom. Decomposition orders: Another generalisation of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Theoretical Computer Science, 335(2–3):147–186, 2005.Google Scholar

[Mai87] M. G., Main. Trace, failure and testing equivalences for communicating processes. Int. J. Parallel Program., 16(5):383–400, 1987.Google Scholar

[Mil81] R., Milner. A modal characterisation of observable machine-behaviour. In E., Astesiano and C., Böhm, eds., Proc. 6th Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming (CAAP '81), volume 112 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 25–34. Springer Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar

[Mil89] R., Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar

[Mil99] R., Milner. Communicating and Mobile Systems: the π-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

[MM93] R., Milner and F., Moller. Unique decomposition of processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 107(2):357–363, 1993.Google Scholar

[Mol89] F., Moller. Axioms for concurrency. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, 1989.

[Mol90a] F., Moller. The importance of the left merge operator in process algebras. In M., Paterson, ed., ICALP'90: Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 443 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 752–764. Springer Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar

[Mol90b] F., Moller. The nonexistence of finite axiomatisations for CCS congruences. In Proc. 5th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'90), 142–153. IEEE Computer Society, 1990.

[Mor68] J. H., Morris. Lambda-Calculus Models of Programming Languages. Ph.D. thesis MAC-TR-57, MIT, project MAC, Dec. 1968.

[Mos74] Y. N., Moschovakis. On non-monotone inductive definability. Fund. Math., LXXXII(1):39–83, 1974.Google Scholar

[MRG07] M. R., Mousavi, M. A., Reniers and J. F., Groote. SOS formats and meta-theory: 20 years after. Theoretical Computer Science, 373(3):238–272, 2007.Google Scholar

[MS92] U., Montanari and V., Sassone. Dynamic congruence vs. progressing bisimulation for CCS. Fundamenta Informaticae, XVI(2):171–199, 1992.Google Scholar

[MT91] R., Milner and M., Tofte. Co-induction in relational semantics. Theoretical Computer Science, 87:209–220, 1991.Google Scholar

[MZ05] M., Merro and F. Z., Nardelli. Behavioral theory for mobile ambients. J. ACM, 52(6):961–1023, 2005.Google Scholar

[NC95] V., Natarajan and R., Cleaveland. Divergence and fair testing. In ICALP'95: Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 944 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 648–659. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

[NNH99] F., Nielson, H. R., Nielson and C., Hankin. Principles of Program Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 1999.Google Scholar

[NP00] U., Nestmann and B. C., Pierce. Decoding choice encodings. Information and Computation, 163(1):1–59, 2000.Google Scholar

[OH86] E.-R., Olderog and C. A. R., Hoare. Specification-oriented semantics for communicating processes. Acta Informatica, 23(1):9–66, 1986.Google Scholar

[Phi87] I., Phillips. Refusal testing. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:241–284, 1987. A preliminary version in Proc. ICALP'86, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 226, Springer Verlag.

[Pit93] A. M., Pitts. Tutorial talk on coinduction. 8th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'93), 1993.Google Scholar

[Pit94] A. M., Pitts. A co-induction principle for recursively defined domains. Theoretical Computer Science, 124:195–219, 1994.Google Scholar

[Pit97] A. M., Pitts. Operationally-based theories of program equivalence. In P., Dybjer and A. M., Pitts, eds., Semantics and Logics of Computation, Publications of the Newton Institute, 241–298. Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

[Pit12] A., Pitts. Howe's method. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[Plo76] G. D., Plotkin. A powerdomain construction. SIAM J. Comput., 5(3):452–487, 1976.Google Scholar

[Plo04a] G. D., Plotkin. The origins of structural operational semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program., 60–61:3–15, 2004.Google Scholar

[Plo04b] G. D., Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program., 60–61:17–139, 2004. Reprinted with corrections from Tech. Rep. DAIMI FN-19, Comp. Sci. Dep. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 1981.Google Scholar

[Prz88] T. C., Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J., Minker, ed. Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming., 193–216. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar

[PS92] J., Parrow and P., Sjödin. Multiway synchronizaton verified with coupled simulation. In R., Cleaveland, ed., CONCUR'92: Concurrency Theory, volume 630 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 518–533. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar

[PS94] J., Parrow and P., Sjödin. The complete axiomatization of cs-congruence. In P., Enjalbert, E. W., Mayr and K. W., Wagner, eds., STACS'94: Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 775 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 557–568. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

[PS00] B., Pierce and D., Sangiorgi. Behavioral equivalence in the polymorphic picalculus. J. ACM, 47(3):531–584, 2000.Google Scholar

[PS12] D., Pous and D., Sangiorgi. Enhancements of the bisimulation proof method. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[RJ12] J., Rutten and B., Jacobs. (Co)algebras and (co)induction. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[RS08] J., Rathke and P., Sobocinski. Deconstructing behavioural theories of mobility. In G., Ausiello, J., Karhumäki, G., Mauri and C.-H., Luke Ong, eds., Proc. Fifth IFIP International Conference On Theoretical Computer Science (TCS 2008), IFIP 20th World Computer Congress, volume 273 of IFIP, 507–520. Springer Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar

[RT94] J., Rutten and D., Turi. Initial algebra and final coalgebra semantics for concurrency. In Proc. Rex School/Symposium 1993 “A Decade of Concurrency – Reflexions and Perspectives”, volume 803 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

[RV07] A., Rensink and W., Volger. Fair testing. Information and Computation, 205:125–198, 2007.Google Scholar

[Sab03] A., Sabelfeld. Confidentiality for multithreaded programs via bisimulation. In M., Broy and A. V., Zamulin, eds., Perspectives of Systems Informatics, 5th Ershov Memorial Conference, volume 2890 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 260–274. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar

[San92] D., Sangiorgi. Expressing Mobility in Process Algebras: First-Order and Higher-Order Paradigms. Ph.D. thesis CST–99–93, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, 1992.

[San96] D., Sangiorgi. Bisimulation for higher-order process calculi. Information and Computation, 131(2):141–178, 1996.Google Scholar

[San12] D., Sangiorgi. The origins of bisimulation and coinduction. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[SKS07a] D., Sangiorgi, N., Kobayashi and E., Sumii. Environmental bisimulations for higher-order languages. In Proc. 22nd Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2007), 293–302. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.Google Scholar

[SKS07b] D., Sangiorgi, N., Kobayashi and E., Sumii. Logical bisimulations and functional languages. In F., Arbab and M., Sirjani, eds., FSEN'07: Symposium on Fundamentals of Software Engineering, volume 4767 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 364–379. Springer Verlag, 2007.Google Scholar

[Smi08] G., Smith. Adversaries and information leaks (tutorial). In G., Barthe and C., Fournet, eds., TGC'07: Trustworthy Global Computing, volume 4912 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 383–400. Springer Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar

[SP04] E., Sumii and B. C., Pierce. A bisimulation for dynamic sealing. In N. D., Jones and X., Leroy, eds., 31st ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 161–172, 2004.Google Scholar

[SP05] E., Sumii and B. C., Pierce. A bisimulation for type abstraction and recursion. In J., Palsberg and M., Abadi eds., 32nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 63–74, 2005.Google Scholar

[SR12] D., Sangiorgi and J., Rutten, eds. Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

[Sti87] C., Stirling. Modal logics for communicating systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 49:311–347, 1987.Google Scholar

[Sti01] C., Stirling. Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Springer Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar

[Sti12] C., Stirling. Bisimulation and logic. In Sangiorgi and Rutten [SR12].

[SW01] D., Sangiorgi and D., Walker. The π-calculus: a Theory of Mobile Processes. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

[Tho90] B., Thomsen. Calculi for Higher Order Communicating Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, 1990.

[Tho93] W., Thomas. On the Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game in theoretical computer science. In M.-C., Gaudel and J.-P., Jouannaud, eds., TAPSOFT'93: Theory and Practice of Software Development, volume 668 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 559–568. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar

[Uli92] I., Ulidowski. Equivalences on observable processes. In Proc. 7th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 1992), 148–159. IEEE Computer Society, 1992.Google Scholar

[Val05] S., Valentini. The problem of the formalization of constructive topology. Arch. Math. Log., 44(1):115–129, 2005.Google Scholar

[Wal90] D., Walker. Bisimulation and divergence. Information and Computation, 85(2):202–241, 1990.Google Scholar

[Wei89] W. P., Weijland. Synchrony and Asynchrony in Process Algebra. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1989.

[Win93] G., Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. The MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar