Behavioural Analysis of Sessions Using the Calculus of Structures

  • Gabriel Ciobanu
  • Ross Horne
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9609)


This paper describes an approach to the behavioural analysis of sessions. The approach is made possible by the calculus of structures — a deep inference proof calculus, generalising the sequent calculus, where inference rules are applied in any context. The approach involves specifications of global and local sessions inspired by the Scribble language. The calculus features a novel operator that synchronises parts of a protocol that must be treated atomically. Firstly, the calculus can be used to determine whether local sessions can be compose in a type safe fashion such that sessions are capable of successfully completing. Secondly, the calculus defines a subtyping relation for sessions that allows causal dependencies to be weakened while retaining termination potential. Consistency and complexity results follow from proof theory.


Local Type Linear Logic Parallel Composition Local Protocol Causal Dependency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work is supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0919. The second author received support from MOE Tier 2 grant MOE2014-T2-2-076.


  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S.: Computational interpretations of linear logic. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 111(1), 3–57 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benzaken, V., Castagna, G., Frisch, A.: CDuce: an XML-centric general-purpose language. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 38(9), 51–63 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caires, L., Pfenning, F.: Session types as intuitionistic linear propositions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaudhuri, K., Guenot, N., Straßburger, L.: The focused calculus of structures. In: EACSL, vol. 12, pp. 159–173 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deniélou, P.-M., Yoshida, N.: Multiparty compatibility in communicating automata: characterisation and synthesis of global session types. In: Fomin, F.V., Freivalds, R., Kwiatkowska, M., Peleg, D. (eds.) ICALP 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7966, pp. 174–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gay, S., Hole, M.: Subtyping for session types in the pi calculus. Acta Informatica 42(2–3), 191–225 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gay, S.J., Vasconcelos, V.T.: Linear type theory for asynchronous session types. J. Funct. Program. 20(1), 19 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gischer, J.L.: The equational theory of pomsets. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 61(2–3), 199–224 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guglielmi, A.: A system of interaction and structure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 8, 1–64 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honda, K.: Types for dyadic interaction. In: Best, E. (ed.) CONCUR 1993. LNCS, vol. 715, pp. 509–523. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honda, K., Mukhamedov, A., Brown, G., Chen, T.-C., Yoshida, N.: Scribbling interactions with a formal foundation. In: Natarajan, R., Ojo, A. (eds.) ICDCIT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6536, pp. 55–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 43(1), 273–284 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horne, R.: The consistency and complexity of multiplicative additive system virtual. Sci. Ann. Comput. Sci. XXV(2), 245–316 (2015). doi: 10.7561/SACS.2015.2.245 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu, R., Neykova, R., Yoshida, N., Demangeon, R., Honda, K.: Practical interruptible conversations. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 130–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, R., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Session-based distributed programming in java. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) ECOOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5142, pp. 516–541. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahramanogullari, O.: Maude as a platform for designing and implementing deep inference systems. ENTCS 219, 35–50 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lincoln, P., et al.: Decision problems for propositional linear logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 56(1), 239–311 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mostrous, D., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Global principal typing in partially commutative asynchronous sessions. In: Castagna, G. (ed.) ESOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5502, pp. 316–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ng, N., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Multiparty session C: safe parallel programming with message optimisation. In: Furia, C.A., Nanz, S. (eds.) TOOLS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7304, pp. 202–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierce, B., Sangiorgi, D.: Typing and subtyping for mobile processes. In: LICS 1993, pp. 376–385. IEEE (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiu, A.: A system of interaction, structure II: the need for deep inference. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 2(2), 1–24 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wadler, P.: Propositions as sessions. J. Funct. Prog. 24(2–3), 384–418 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceRomanian AcademyIasiRomania
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyKazakh-British Technical UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore CitySingapore

Personalised recommendations