Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Complete Test Suites for Automata in Monoidal Closed Categories

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the classical W-method for conformance testing works for every automaton living in a monoidal closed category, provided the specification is minimal and supplied with a state cover and a characterization morphism.

desk verdict A genuinely categorical W-method completeness lemma with new weighted/nominal test suites, but completeness is relative to reachability-condition fault domains, not size bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13412 v3 pith:76Y2CTDW submitted 2024-11-20 cs.FL cs.LO

Bálint Kocsis , Jurriaan Rot This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.FLcs.LO
keywords conformancetestingcompletetestsuitesW-methodmonoidalclosedcategoriescoalgebraautomatalearningweightednominal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the classical W-method for conformance testing works not just for finite automata but for any automaton that lives in a monoidal closed category — a setting in which machines can be seen simultaneously as algebras and as coalgebras. The method needs two ingredients: a state cover, a set of words that reaches every state of the specification, and a characterization set, a set of words that separates any two semantically different states. Given those, the paper's main theorem produces a test suite that is complete with respect to implementations with bounded reachability: any implementation in the fault domain that passes all tests is genuinely equivalent to the specification. The theorem recovers the known W-method for deterministic finite automata, Moore machines, and Mealy machines, and it yields, to the paper's knowledge, the first complete test suites for weighted automata and for deterministic nominal automata. The practical point is that equivalence queries in automata learning, often the bottleneck, can be discharged by test suites in a much wider class of models.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the dual view of an automaton $(Q,i_Q,\delta_Q,f_Q)$ as an $F$-algebra for $FX=I+X\otimes\Sigma$ and a $G$-coalgebra for $GX=O\times[X,\Sigma]$. Words $\Sigma^*$ are the initial $F$-algebra, and languages $[\Sigma^*,O]$ are the final $G$-coalgebra, so the reachability map $r_A:\Sigma^*\to Q$ and the language map $l_A:Q\to[\Sigma^*,O]$ are uniquely determined. A state cover $p:P\to\Sigma^*$ is a map containing the empty word such that $r_S\circ p$ is a split epimorphism; a weak state cover additionally carries a transition map $\delta_C$ that follows the transitions of $S$ on the covered words. A characterization morphism $w:W\to\Sigma^*$ is a map such that equality of languages restricted to $W$ implies equality of full languages for every parallel pair of states. The generalized W-method composes these as $t^k_{p,w}=p\cdot j_{k+1}\cdot w$, where $j_{k+1}$ is the inclusion of words of length at most $k+1$; completeness is shown by turning test agreement into an AM-bisimulation, a categorical bisimulation connecting the two automata, and finality of the language coalgebra then forces language equivalence.

What would settle it

Take the weighted automaton S of Section 5.2 with P={ε,b}, W={ε,b}, k=1, and solve the linear equations LS|T = LM|T for a five-state implementation M whose P·$Σ^{{≤1}}$ spans its state space. If any solution has LS≠LM, the suite is not complete and Theorem 5.7 falls; the paper reports its faulty example is rejected, so the expected outcome is that no such solution exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing result is Corollary 4.13: for any minimal automaton $S$ in a monoidal closed category, any morphism $p: P \to \Sigma^*$, any characterization morphism $w: W \to \Sigma^*$ for $S$, and any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, the generalized W test suite $t^k_{p,w} = p \cdot j_{k+1} \cdot w$ is complete for $S$ with respect to the fault domain $U^k_p = \{M \mid (p \cdot j_k, \delta) \text{ is a weak state cover for } M\}$. In words: if an implementation $M$ in this fault domain agrees with $S$ on all test words, then $M$ and $S$ recognize the same language. The proof shows that agreement on the test suite lets one construct a categorical bisimulation between the reachable parts of $S$ and $M$, so equivalence follows from finality of the language coalgebra.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that for every object X the functor $X\otimes -$ preserves countable coproducts; if some category of interest fails that, the word object, concatenation, state covers, and the W test suite cannot even be formed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For deterministic finite automata, Moore machines, and Mealy machines, the generalized theorem reproduces the standard W-method and its completeness, so one proof covers all three.
  • For weighted automata over a field, Theorem 5.7 gives a complete test suite: implementations in $U^k_P$ that agree on $P\cdot\Sigma^{\le k+1}\cdot W$ must have identical weighted languages.
  • For deterministic nominal automata, Theorem 5.9 gives a complete test suite; the paper's worked example is infinite but orbit-finite, hence finitely presentable in the nominal sense.
  • Because completeness is unchanged under factorization (Corollary 4.16), the abstract morphism-based test suite can be replaced by its image, matching the subset-based notion used in practice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same theorem probably extends to weighted automata over semirings, since the paper's machinery only needs the category of semimodules to preserve countable coproducts; this is not shown in the paper and would require new state-cover and characterization-set algorithms.
  • The weak-state-cover notion was motivated by ordered automata, where ordinary state covers cannot exist; a reader might expect complete test suites for ordered automata to follow from Corollary 4.11 even though the paper does not spell out that instance.
  • The paper stops at completeness and does not say how to compute state covers and characterization sets for weighted or nominal automata; without such algorithms, the new complete suites are existential guarantees rather than directly usable test generators.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a categorical framework for conformance testing of automata in monoidal closed categories. It defines generalized test suites, fault domains, weak state covers, and characterization morphisms, and proves a categorical completeness theorem (Theorem 4.9, Corollary 4.13): if a minimal specification S and an implementation M agree on the generalized W-test suite t^k_{p,w}, and M belongs to the fault domain U^k_p consisting of automata for which p·j_k is a weak state cover, then S and M are language-equivalent. The framework is instantiated to recover test-suite completeness for DFAs, Moore machines, and Mealy machines, and to derive new completeness results for weighted automata and deterministic nominal automata. The proofs are deferred to detailed appendices, with a categorification of the AM-bisimulation proof of the classical Lemma 2.6.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a valuable unification of W-method-style completeness proofs at a high level of abstraction, and it gives the first completeness results for weighted and nominal automata in this testing setting. The appendices contain extensive proofs, and the examples are worked in enough detail to be checkable. The main caveat is that the completeness results are relative to fault domains defined by a state-cover condition on the implementation, not by a bound on the number of states; classical m-completeness is therefore not recovered at the general level. This conditional nature should be reflected in the paper's claims, but it does not invalidate the technical content.

major comments (1)
  1. [Corollary 4.13, Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Section 5.3] The paper's framing overstates what is proved. Corollary 4.13 establishes completeness of t^k_{p,w} only with respect to U^k_p = {M | (p·j_k, δ_C) is a weak state cover for M}. For DFAs, Moore machines, and Mealy machines, the classical W-method's n+k-completeness (Corollary 2.7) additionally requires Lemma 2.5, which derives the state-cover property for any implementation with at most n+k states from agreement on P·W. The paper explicitly does not generalize Lemma 2.5, and consequently the abstract and Section 5.1 claims of 'recovering the W-method' are too strong: what is recovered is the test-suite construction and the completeness argument of Lemma 2.6, not the full m-complete fault-domain result. This is a load-bearing scope issue for the central claim, and it should be corrected either by adding an explicit statement that m-completeness is not derived, or by proving a categorical analogue of Lemma 2.5 for the concrete instances.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D.4] In the proof of Proposition 5.4(ii), the string 'LS.[s2]|W' should read 'LS(s2)|W'.
  2. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'classes of of automata'; the duplicated 'of' should be removed.
  3. [Title] The PDF title contains an extra space in 'Complete T est Suites'; this should be fixed in the camera-ready version.
  4. [Section 5.3] In the nominal automata example, the sentence 'Hence, we obtain the complete test suite T^0_{P,W}' should explicitly recall that completeness is with respect to the fault domain U^0_p defined in Theorem 5.9, so that the conditional nature of the result is not lost in the example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the completeness theorem is proven for an explicitly conditional fault domain, and the self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

I examined the claimed derivation chain from Definitions 4.3/4.4/4.7 through Theorem 4.9 and Corollary 4.13. The fault domain U^k_p is defined in Definition 4.10 and the paragraph after Definition 4.12 as the class of implementations for which p·j_k is a weak state cover. This is a reachability condition on the implementation, not a restatement of language equivalence or of agreement on the test suite. Corollary 4.13 asserts that, for implementations satisfying that reachability condition, agreement on the larger suite p·j_{k+1}·w forces equivalence. The conclusion therefore does more than unfold the definition of U^k_p; it is proved by the AM-bisimulation argument in Appendix C. The paper explicitly states its scope limit: 'We do not generalize Lemma 2.5, as it relies on notions of size that are better handled on a case-by-case basis,' and Section 6 repeats that a state cover and characterization set are assumed as input. This explains why the framework yields complete test suites only with respect to reachability-defined fault domains, rather than recovering full classical m-completeness categorically; that is a real limitation but not a circular one. The citation to [35] is for proof inspiration only, and the categorical proof is reproduced in the appendix, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. I found no equation or definition that reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities; the central claim rests on standard categorical assumptions about the ambient category and on the minimality of the specification.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The ambient category C is monoidal closed with binary products and countable coproducts.
    Fixed in Section 3; needed to define words Σ∗, languages [Σ∗,O], and automata.
  • domain assumption For every object X, the functor X ⊗ − preserves countable coproducts.
    Assumed right after Definition 3.1; used to construct Σ∗⊗Σ∗ and the initial algebra (Σ∗, [κ0,snoc]).
  • domain assumption The specification S is minimal, i.e. lS : S → [Σ∗,O] is a monomorphism.
    The main theorem (4.9) and Lemma C.8 rely on minimality; the paper notes a specification can be minimized beforehand, so this is not a serious restriction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete Test Suites for Automata in Monoidal Closed Categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76Y2CTDW

@misc{pith2026241113412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete Test Suites for Automata in Monoidal Closed Categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76Y2CTDW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13412}
}
read the original abstract

Conformance testing of automata is about checking the equivalence of a known specification and a black-box implementation. An important notion in conformance testing is that of a complete test suite, which guarantees that if an implementation satisfying certain conditions passes all tests, then it is equivalent to the specification. We introduce a framework for proving completeness of test suites at the general level of automata in monoidal closed categories. Moreover, we provide a generalization of a classical conformance testing technique, the W-method. We demonstrate the applicability of our results by recovering the W-method for deterministic finite automata, Moore machines, and Mealy machines, and by deriving new instances of complete test suites for weighted automata and deterministic nominal automata.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A DFA S for a cof￾fee machine Let us illustrate the W-method on a toy ex￾ample. (This example is based on a Mealy ma￾chine in [35].) Suppose we have a coffee machine that can dispense coffee or espresso. Coffee costs 1 coin and espresso costs 2 coins. Suppose that the machine breaks whenever we try to order some￾thing without enough money, or when we insert more than 2 coins. Then the DFA S over the al￾phabet Σ = {c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A WA S for computing the decimal value of a binary num￾ber As an example, consider the WA S over the alphabet {a, b} and field R depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example DNA S accepting the language L = {aa | a ∈ A} As an example, consider the DNA S over the alphabet A of atoms (re￾garded as a nominal set with group ac￾tion π·a = π(a)) depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A faulty implementation WA M 2k3q0+(k0+k2)q2+(2k1+2k3)q3+2k4q4 and Mδ b (k0q0+k1q1+k2q2+k3q3+k4q4) = k0q0 + k0q1 + k2q2 + 2k3q3 + (2k1 + k2 + 2k4)q4. Hence, we have Mδ ε q0 = q0, Mδ b q0 − Mδ ε q0 = (q0 + q1) − q0 = q1, Mδ a q0 = q2, 1 2 Mδ baq0 − 1 2 Mδ a q0 = 1 2 (q2…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarts, F., Heidarian, F., Kuppens, H., Olsen, P., Vaandra ger, F.W.: Automata learning through counterexample guided abstraction refine ment. In: FM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7436, pp. 10–27. Springer (2 012)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Adámek, J., Rosický, J.: Locally presentable and accessi ble categories, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 189. Cambri dge University Press (1994)

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Adámek, J., Trnková, V.: Automata and algebras in categor ies, Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 37. Springer Netherlands (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Angluin, D.: Learning regular sets from queries and count erexamples. Inf. Comput. 75(2), 87–106 (1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Angluin, D., Antonopoulos, T., Fisman, D.: Query learnin g of derived ω -tree lan- guages in polynomial time. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 15(3) (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 6(3), 313–344 (1975)

    Arbib, M.A., Manes, E.G.: Adjoint machines, state-behav ior machines, and duality. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 6(3), 313–344 (1975)

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Aslam, K., Cleophas, L., Schiffelers, R.R.H., van den Bran d, M.: Interface protocol inference to aid understanding legacy software components . Softw. Syst. Model. 19(6), 1519–1540 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-020-00809-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-020-00809-2 2020

  8. [8]

    Balle, B., Mohri, M.: Learning weighted automata. In: CAI . Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, vol. 9270, pp. 1–21. Springer (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    In: FoSSaCS

    Barlocco, S., Kupke, C., Rot, J.: Coalgebra learning via d uality. In: FoSSaCS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11425, pp. 62–79. Sp ringer (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Bergadano, F., Varricchio, S.: Learning behaviors of au tomata from multi- plicity and equivalence queries. SIAM J. Comput. 25(6), 1268–1280 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1137/S009753979326091X

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Bojańczyk, M., Klin, B., Lasota, S.: Automata theory in n ominal sets. Log. Meth- ods Comput. Sci. 10(3) (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    In: IJCAI

    Bollig, B., Habermehl, P., Kern, C., Leucker, M.: Anglui n-style learning of NF A. In: IJCAI. pp. 1004–1009 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    In: Developments in Language Theory

    Bollig, B., Habermehl, P., Leucker, M., Monmege, B.: A fr esh approach to learn- ing register automata. In: Developments in Language Theory . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7907, pp. 118–130. Springer (2013) 20 Bálint Kocsis and Jurriaan Rot

    2013

  6. [14]

    Bonchi, F., Bonsangue, M.M., Boreale, M., Rutten, J.J.M .M., Silva, A.: A coalge- braic perspective on linear weighted automata. Inf. Comput . 211, 77–105 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    In: CONCUR

    Boreale, M.: Weighted bisimulation in linear algebraic form. In: CONCUR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5710, pp. 163–177. Springer (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    van den Bos, P., Janssen, R., Moerman, J.: n-Complete tes t suites for IOCO. Softw. Qual. J. 27(2), 563–588 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    (eds.): Model- based testing of reactive systems, Lecture Notes in Compute r Science, vol

    Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.P., Leucker, M., Pretsc hner, A. (eds.): Model- based testing of reactive systems, Lecture Notes in Compute r Science, vol. 3472. Springer (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Brzozowski, J.A.: Derivatives of regular expressions. J. ACM 11(4), 481–494 (1964)

    1964

  11. [19]

    Buna-Marginean, A., Cheval, V., Shirmohammadi, M., Wor rell, J.: On learning polynomial recursive programs. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 8(POPL), 1001–1027 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Formal Aspects Comput

    Cassel, S., Howar, F., Jonsson, B., Steffen, B.: Active le arning for extended finite state machines. Formal Aspects Comput. 28(2), 233–263 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    IEEE Trans

    Chow, T.S.: Testing software design modeled by finite-st ate machines. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 4(3), 178–187 (1978)

    1978

  14. [22]

    Colcombet, T., Petrisan, D., Stabile, R.: Learning auto mata and transducers: A categorical approach. In: CSL. LIPIcs, vol. 183, pp. 15:1–1 5:17. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Dorofeeva, R., El-Fakih, K., Maag, S., Cavalli, A.R., Ye vtushenko, N.: FSM-based conformance testing methods: A survey annotated with exper imental evaluation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(12), 1286–1297 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    In: Handbook o f Automata Theory (I.), pp

    Droste, M., Kuske, D.: Weighted automata. In: Handbook o f Automata Theory (I.), pp. 113–150. European Mathematical Society Publishing Hou se, Zürich, Switzer- land (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    IEEE Trans

    Fujiwara, S., von Bochmann, G., Khendek, F., Amalou, M., Ghedamsi, A.: Test selection based on finite state models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 17(6), 591–603 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    Goguen, J.A.: Discrete-time machines in closed monoida l categories I. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 10(1), 1–43 (1975)

    1975

  19. [27]

    In: FoSSaCS

    van Heerdt, G., Kupke, C., Rot, J., Silva, A.: Learning we ighted automata over principal ideal domains. In: FoSSaCS. Lecture Notes in Comp uter Science, vol. 12077, pp. 602–621. Springer (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    In: CMCS

    van Heerdt, G., Sammartino, M., Silva, A.: Learning auto mata with side-effects. In: CMCS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12094, pp. 68–89. Springer (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    In: Machine Learning for Dynamic Software Analysis

    Howar, F., Steffen, B.: Active automata learning in pract ice: An annotated bib- liography of the years 2011 to 2016. In: Machine Learning for Dynamic Software Analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11026, pp . 123–148. Springer (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Isberner, M.: Foundations of active automata learning: an algorithmic perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Dortmund, Germany (201 5)

  23. [31]

    In: CA V (1)

    Isberner, M., Howar, F., Steffen, B.: The open-source Lea rnLib: A framework for active automata learning. In: CA V (1). Lecture Notes in C omputer Science, vol. 9206, pp. 487–495. Springer (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Bulletin-European Association for Theoretical Computer S cience 62, 222–259 (1997) Complete Test Suites for Automata in Monoidal Closed Catego ries 21

    Jacobs, B., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: A tutorial on (co)algebra s and (co)induction. Bulletin-European Association for Theoretical Computer S cience 62, 222–259 (1997) Complete Test Suites for Automata in Monoidal Closed Catego ries 21

    1997

  25. [33]

    In: ICTAC

    Kanso, B., Aiguier, M., Boulanger, F., Touil, A.: Testin g of abstract components. In: ICTAC. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6255, pp. 184–198. Springer (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    I n: LATA

    Klíma, O., Polák, L.: On varieties of ordered automata. I n: LATA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11417, pp. 108–120. Springer (201 9)

  27. [35]

    In: TACAS (2)

    Kruger, L., Junges, S., Rot, J.: Small test suites for act ive automata learning. In: TACAS (2). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14571, pp . 109–129. Springer (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Lee, D., Yannakakis, M.: Principles and methods of testi ng finite state machines – a survey. Proc. IEEE 84(8), 1090–1123 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Master’s the- sis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands (2020)

    Maarse, T.: Active Mealy machine learning using action r efinements. Master’s the- sis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Mac Lane, S.: Categories for the working mathematician, Graduate Texts in Math- ematics, vol. 5. Springer New York (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Maler, O., Pnueli, A.: On the learnability of infinitary r egular sets. Inf. Comput. 118(2), 316–326 (1995), https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1995.1070

    1995

  32. [40]

    In: HLDVT

    Margaria, T., Niese, O., Raffelt, H., Steffen, B.: Efficient test-based model genera- tion for legacy reactive systems. In: HLDVT. pp. 95–100. IEE E Computer Society (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Moerman, J.S.: Nominal techniques and black box testing for automata learning. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherland s (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    In: POPL

    Moerman, J.S., Sammartino, M., Silva, A., Klin, B., Szyn welski, M.: Learning nominal automata. In: POPL. pp. 613–625. ACM (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    In: Automata Studies, pp

    Moore, E.F.: Gedanken-experiments on sequential machi nes. In: Automata Studies, pp. 129–153. Princeton University Press (1956)

    1956

  36. [44]

    , Tappler, M.: AALpy: An active automata learning library

    Muskardin, E., Aichernig, B.K., Pill, I., Pferscher, A. , Tappler, M.: AALpy: An active automata learning library. In: ATV A. Lecture Notes i n Computer Science, vol. 12971, pp. 67–73. Springer (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    In: HASE

    Petrenko, A., Yevtushenko, N.: Adaptive testing of nond eterministic systems with FSM. In: HASE. pp. 224–228. IEEE Computer Society (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Pitts, A.M.: Nominal sets: Names and symmetry in compute r science, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 57. Cambridge University Press (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Rabin, M.O., Scott, D.S.: Finite automata and their deci sion problems. IBM J. Res. Dev. 3(2), 114–125 (1959)

    1959

  40. [48]

    Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Universal coalgebra: a theory of syst ems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 249(1), 3–80 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Staton, S.: Relating coalgebraic notions of bisimulati on. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 7(1) (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    , Larsen, K.G.: L*-based learning of Markov decision processes (extended version)

    Tappler, M., Aichernig, B.K., Bacci, G., Eichlseder, M. , Larsen, K.G.: L*-based learning of Markov decision processes (extended version). Formal Aspects Comput. 33(4), 575–615 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    In: LICS

    Urbat, H., Schröder, L.: Automata learning: An algebrai c approach. In: LICS. pp. 900–914. ACM (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Vaandrager, F.W.: Model learning. Commun. ACM 60(2), 86–95 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Vaandrager, F.W., Fiterˇ au-Broştean, P., Melse, I.: Completeness of FSM test suites reconsidered (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19405

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Vasilevskii, M.P.: Failure diagnosis of automata. Cybe rnetics 9(4), 653–665 (1973) 22 Bálint Kocsis and Jurriaan Rot A Categorical preliminaries In this section, we recall some categorical notions used in t his paper: algebras and coalgebras for a functor, and monoidal closed...

    1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.