skip to main content
10.1145/2837614.2837649acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespoplConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Symbolic computation of differential equivalences

Published:11 January 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are widespread in many natural sciences including chemistry, ecology, and systems biology, and in disciplines such as control theory and electrical engineering. Building on the celebrated molecules-as-processes paradigm, they have become increasingly popular in computer science, with high-level languages and formal methods such as Petri nets, process algebra, and rule-based systems that are interpreted as ODEs. We consider the problem of comparing and minimizing ODEs automatically. Influenced by traditional approaches in the theory of programming, we propose differential equivalence relations. We study them for a basic intermediate language, for which we have decidability results, that can be targeted by a class of high-level specifications. An ODE implicitly represents an uncountable state space, hence reasoning techniques cannot be borrowed from established domains such as probabilistic programs with finite-state Markov chain semantics. We provide novel symbolic procedures to check an equivalence and compute the largest one via partition refinement algorithms that use satisfiability modulo theories. We illustrate the generality of our framework by showing that differential equivalences include (i) well-known notions for the minimization of continuous-time Markov chains (lumpability), (ii)~bisimulations for chemical reaction networks recently proposed by Cardelli et al., and (iii) behavioral relations for process algebra with ODE semantics. With a prototype implementation we are able to detect equivalences in biochemical models from the literature that cannot be reduced using competing automatic techniques.

References

  1. MAPK cascade in yeast - dimerization of Ste5. Available at http: //vcell.org/bionetgen/samples.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Antoulas. Approximation of Large-Scale Dynamical Systems. Advances in Design and Control. SIAM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. U. M. Ascher and L. R. Petzold. Computer Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations and Differential-Algebraic Equations. SIAM, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Aziz, K. Sanwal, V. Singhal, and R. Brayton. Model-checking continuous-time Markov chains. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, 1(1): 162–170, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. Principles of model checking. MIT Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-262-02649-9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Baier, B. Engelen, and M. E. Majster-Cederbaum. Deciding bisimilarity and similarity for probabilistic processes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 60(1):187–231, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Barrett, R. Sebastiani, S. A. Seshia, S. A. S. Cesare Tinelli Clark Barrett, Roberto Sebastiani, and C. Tinelli. Handbook of Satisfiability: Volume 185 Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, chapter Satisfiability Modulo Theories. IOS Press, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. Barua and B. Goldstein. A mechanistic model of early FcεRI signaling: lipid rafts and the question of protection from dephosphorylation. PLoS One, 7(12), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Berdine and N. Bjørner. Computing all implied equalities via SMTbased partition refinement. In Automated Reasoning, volume 8562 of LNCS, pages 168–183. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Bernardo. A survey of Markovian behavioral equivalences. In Formal Methods for Performance Evaluation, volume 4486 of LNCS, pages 180–219. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. L. Blinov, J. R. Faeder, B. Goldstein, and W. S. Hlavacek. BioNet-Gen: software for rule-based modeling of signal transduction based on the interactions of molecular domains. Bioinformatics, 20(17): 3289–3291, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. Buchholz. Exact and ordinary lumpability in finite markov chains. Journal of Applied Probability, 31(1):59–75, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P. Buchholz. Exact performance equivalence: An equivalence relation for stochastic automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 215(1–2): 263–287, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. L. Calzone, F. Fages, and S. Soliman. BIOCHAM: an environment for modeling biological systems and formalizing experimental knowledge. Bioinformatics, 22(14):1805–1807, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. F. Camporesi and J. Feret. Formal reduction for rule-based models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 276:29–59, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. F. Camporesi, J. Feret, H. Koeppl, and T. Petrov. Combining model reductions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 265: 73–96, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L. Cardelli. On process rate semantics. Theoretical Computer Science, 391(3):190–215, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. Cardelli. Morphisms of reaction networks that couple structure to function. BMC Systems Biology, 8(1):84, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Cardelli and A. Csikász-Nagy. The cell cycle switch computes approximate majority. Sci. Rep., 2, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. L. Cardelli, M. Tribastone, M. Tschaikowski, and A. Vandin. Forward and backward bisimulations for chemical reaction networks. In CONCUR, pages 226–239, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Ciocchetta and J. Hillston. Bio-PEPA: A framework for the modelling and analysis of biological systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 410 (33-34):3065–3084, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Colvin, M. I. Monine, J. R. Faeder, W. S. Hlavacek, D. D. V. Hoff, and R. G. Posner. Simulation of large-scale rule-based models. Bioinformatics, 25(7):910–917, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Colvin, M. I. Monine, R. N. Gutenkunst, W. S. Hlavacek, D. D. V. Hoff, and R. G. Posner. Rulemonkey: software for stochastic simulation of rule-based models. BMC Bioinformatics, 11:404, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. H. Conzelmann, J. Saez-Rodriguez, T. Sauter, B. Kholodenko, and E. Gilles. A domain-oriented approach to the reduction of combinatorial complexity in signal transduction networks. BMC Bioinformatics, 7(1): 34, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. H. Conzelmann, D. Fey, and E. Gilles. Exact model reduction of combinatorial reaction networks. BMC Systems Biology, 2(1):78, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. V. Danos and C. Laneve. Formal molecular biology. Theoretical Computer Science, 325(1):69–110, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. V. Danos, J. Desharnais, F. Laviolette, and P. Panangaden. Bisimulation and cocongruence for probabilistic systems. Information and Computation, 204(4):503–523, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. V. Danos, J. Feret, W. Fontana, R. Harmer, and J. Krivine. Abstracting the differential semantics of rule-based models: Exact and automated model reduction. In LICS, pages 362–381, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. David and H. Alla. Discrete, Continuous, and Hybrid Petri Nets. Springer, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. L. De Moura and N. Bjørner. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In TACAS, pages 337–340, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. De Nicola, D. Latella, M. Loreti, and M. Massink. A uniform definition of stochastic process calculi. ACM Computing Surveys, 46 (1):5:1–5:35, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. C. Dehnert, J.-P. Katoen, and D. Parker. SMT-based bisimulation minimisation of Markov models. In VMCAI, volume 7737 of LNCS, pages 28–47, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Derisavi, H. Hermanns, and W. H. Sanders. Optimal state-space lumping in Markov chains. Inf. Process. Lett., 87(6):309–315, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. J. R. Faeder, W. S. Hlavacek, I. Reischl, M. L. Blinov, H. Metzger, A. Redondo, C. Wofsy, and B. Goldstein. Investigation of early events in FcεRI-mediated signaling using a detailed mathematical model. The Journal of Immunology, 170(7):3769–3781, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. J. Feret. Fragments-based model reduction: Some case studies. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 268:77–96, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. J. Feret, V. Danos, J. Krivine, R. Harmer, and W. Fontana. Internal coarse-graining of molecular systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(16):6453–6458, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. J. Feret, T. Henzinger, H. Koeppl, and T. Petrov. Lumpability abstractions of rule-based systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 431: 137–164, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. Fisher and T. Henzinger. Executable cell biology. Nature Biotechnology, 25(11):1239–1249, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. V. Galpin. Continuous approximation of PEPA models and Petri nets. International Journal of Computer Aided Engineering and Technology, 2:324–339, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. S. Gao, S. Kong, and E. Clarke. Satisfiability modulo ODEs. In FMCAD, pages 105–112, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. S. Gulwani, S. Jha, A. Tiwari, and R. Venkatesan. Synthesis of loop-free programs. In PLDI, pages 62–73, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. R. A. Hayden and J. T. Bradley. A fluid analysis framework for a Markovian process algebra. Theoretical Computer Science, 411(22- 24):2260–2297, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. M. Heiner, D. Gilbert, and R. Donaldson. Petri nets for systems and synthetic biology. In Formal Methods for Computational Systems Biology, volume 5016 of LNCS, pages 215–264. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. H. Hermanns and M. Rettelbach. Syntax, semantics, equivalences, and axioms for MTIPP. In Proceedings of Process Algebra and Probabilistic Methods, pages 71–87, Erlangen, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. H. Hermanns and M. Siegle. Bisimulation algorithms for stochastic process algebras and their BDD-based implementation. In ARTS, pages 244–264, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. J. Hillston. A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. J. Hillston. Fluid flow approximation of PEPA models. In QEST, pages 33–43, Sept. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. D. T. Huynh and L. Tian. On some equivalence relations for probabilistic processes. Fundam. Inform., 17(3):211–234, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. G. Iacobelli, M. Tribastone, and A. Vandin. Differential bisimulation for a Markovian process algebra. In MFCS, pages 293–306, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. D. Jovanovic and L. M. de Moura. Solving non-linear arithmetic. In IJCAR, pages 339–354, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. P. C. Kanellakis and S. A. Smolka. CCS expressions, finite state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Inf. Comput., 86(1): 43–68, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. J. Kemeny and J. Snell. Finite Markov Chains. Springer New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. P. Kocieniewski, J. R. Faeder, and T. Lipniacki. The interplay of double phosphorylation and scaffolding in MAPK pathways. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 295:116–124, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. A. S. Köksal, V. Kuncak, and P. Suter. Constraints as control. In POPL, pages 151–164, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker. Prism 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In CAV, pages 585–591, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. M. Kwiatkowski and I. Stark. The continuous pi-calculus: A process algebra for biochemical modelling. In CMSB, pages 103–122, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. K. G. Larsen and A. Skou. Bisimulation through probabilistic testing. Inf. Comput., 94(1):1–28, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Y. Li, A. Albarghouthi, Z. Kincaid, A. Gurfinkel, and M. Chechik. Symbolic optimization with SMT solvers. In POPL, pages 607–618, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. S. Mover, A. Cimatti, A. Tiwari, and S. Tonetta. Time-aware relational abstractions for hybrid systems. In EMSOFT, pages 1–10, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. M. Nagasaki, S. Onami, S. Miyano, and H. Kitano. Bio-calculus: Its concept and molecular interaction. Genome Informatics, 10:133–143, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. D. L. Nelson and M. M. Cox. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry. Palgrave Macmillan, 6th edition, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. J. Norris. Markov Chains. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. M. S. Okino and M. L. Mavrovouniotis. Simplification of mathematical models of chemical reaction systems. Chemical Reviews, 2(98):391– 408, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. R. Paige and R. Tarjan. Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 16(6):973–989, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. G. J. Pappas. Bisimilar linear systems. Automatica, 39(12):2035–2047, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. M. Pedersen and G. Plotkin. A language for biochemical systems: Design and formal specification. In Transactions on Computational Systems Biology XII, volume 5945 of LNCS, pages 77–145. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. A. D. Pierro, C. Hankin, and H. Wiklicky. Quantitative relations and approximate process equivalences. In CONCUR, pages 498–512, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. A. Regev and E. Shapiro. Cellular abstractions: Cells as computation. Nature, 419(6905):343–343, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. S. Sankaranarayanan and A. Tiwari. Relational abstractions for continuous and hybrid systems. In CAV, pages 686–702, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. M. W. Sneddon, J. R. Faeder, and T. Emonet. Efficient modeling, simulation and coarse-graining of biological complexity with NFsim. Nature Methods, 8(2):177–183, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. J. Sproston and S. Donatelli. Backward bisimulation in Markov chain model checking. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 32(8):531–546, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. W. J. Stewart. Probability, Markov Chains, Queues, and Simulation. Princeton University Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. R. Suderman and E. J. Deeds. Machines vs. ensembles: Effective MAPK signaling through heterogeneous sets of protein complexes. PLoS Comput. Biol., 9(10):e1003278, 10 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. J. Toth, G. Li, H. Rabitz, and A. S. Tomlin. The effect of lumping and expanding on kinetic differential equations. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 57(6):1531–1556, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. M. Tribastone. A fluid model for layered queueing networks. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 39(6):744–756, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. M. Tribastone, S. Gilmore, and J. Hillston. Scalable differential analysis of process algebra models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 38(1):205–219, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. M. Tschaikowski and M. Tribastone. Exact fluid lumpability for Markovian process algebra. In CONCUR, pages 380–394, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. A. Valmari and G. Franceschinis. Simple O(m log n) time Markov chain lumping. In TACAS, pages 38–52, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. A. J. van der Schaft. Equivalence of dynamical systems by bisimulation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 49, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. E. O. Voit. Biochemical systems theory: A review. ISRN Biomathematics, 2013:53, 2013. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/ 897658%}897658.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Symbolic computation of differential equivalences

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        POPL '16: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
        January 2016
        815 pages
        ISBN:9781450335492
        DOI:10.1145/2837614
        • cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
          ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 51, Issue 1
          POPL '16
          January 2016
          815 pages
          ISSN:0362-1340
          EISSN:1558-1160
          DOI:10.1145/2914770
          • Editor:
          • Andy Gill
          Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 11 January 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate824of4,130submissions,20%

        Upcoming Conference

        POPL '25

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader