Multiparty Session Types Meet Communicating Automata

  • Pierre-Malo Deniélou
  • Nobuko Yoshida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7211)


Communicating finite state machines (CFSMs) represent processes which communicate by asynchronous exchanges of messages via FIFO channels. Their major impact has been in characterising essential properties of communications such as freedom from deadlock and communication error, and buffer boundedness. CFSMs are known to be computationally hard: most of these properties are undecidable even in restricted cases. At the same time, multiparty session types are a recent typed framework whose main feature is its ability to efficiently enforce these properties for mobile processes and programming languages. This paper ties the links between the two frameworks to achieve a two-fold goal. On one hand, we present a generalised variant of multiparty session types that have a direct semantical correspondence to CFSMs. Our calculus can treat expressive forking, merging and joining protocols that are absent from existing session frameworks, and our typing system can ensure properties such as safety, boundedness and liveness on distributed processes by a polynomial time type checking. On the other hand, multiparty session types allow us to identify a new class of CFSMs that automatically enjoy the aforementioned properties , generalising Gouda et al’s work [12] (for two machines) to an arbitrary number of machines.


Local Type Local Choice Parallel Composition Liveness Property Session Type 
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.


  1. 1.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Deciding choreography realizability. In: POPL 2012. ACM (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Synchronizability for Verification of Asynchronously Communicating Systems. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 56–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bettini, L., Coppo, M., D’Antoni, L., De Luca, M., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Yoshida, N.: Global Progress in Dynamically Interleaved Multiparty Sessions. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 418–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Business Process Model and Notation,
  5. 5.
    Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. J. ACM 30, 323–342 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castagna, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Padovani, L.: On Global Types and Multi-party Sessions. In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FORTE 2011 and FMOODS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 1–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cécé, G., Finkel, A.: Verification of programs with half-duplex communication. Inf. Comput. 202(2), 166–190 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corin, R., Deniélou, P.M., Fournet, C., Bhargavan, K., Leifer, J.: Secure implementations for typed session abstractions. In: CSF, pp. 170–186 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deniélou, P.M., Yoshida, N.: Buffered Communication Analysis in Distributed Multiparty Sessions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 343–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deniélou, P.M., Yoshida, N.: Dynamic multirole session types. In: POPL, pp. 435–446. ACM (2011), full version, Prototype at,
  11. 11.
    Genest, B., Muscholl, A., Peled, D.: Message Sequence Charts. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 537–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gouda, M., Manning, E., Yu, Y.: On the progress of communication between two finite state machines. Information and Control 63, 200–216 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Honda, K., Vasconcelos, V.T., Kubo, M.: Language Primitives and Type Discipline for Structured Communication-Based Programming. In: Hankin, C. (ed.) ESOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1381, pp. 122–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty Asynchronous Session Types. In: POPL 2008, pp. 273–284. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kouzapas, D., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: On Asynchronous Session Semantics. In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FORTE 2011 and FMOODS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lozes, E., Villard, J.: Reliable contracts for unreliable half-duplex communications. In: WS-FM. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ng, N., Yoshida, N., Pernet, O., Hu, R., Kryftis, Y.: Safe Parallel Programming with Session Java. In: De Meuter, W., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6721, pp. 110–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Savara JBoss Project,
  20. 20.
    Scribble JBoss Project,
  21. 21.
    Sivaramakrishnan, K.C., Nagaraj, K., Ziarek, L., Eugster, P.: Efficient Session Type Guided Distributed Interaction. In: Clarke, D., Agha, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2010. LNCS, vol. 6116, pp. 152–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swamy, N., Chen, J., Fournet, C., Strub, P.Y., Bharagavan, K., Yang, J.: Secure distributed programming with value-dependent types. In: ICFP, pp. 266–278. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Villard, J.: Heaps and Hops. Ph.D. thesis, ENS Cachan (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoshida, N., Deniélou, P.M., Bejleri, A., Hu, R.: Parameterised Multiparty Session Types. In: Ong, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6014, pp. 128–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Malo Deniélou
    • 1
  • Nobuko Yoshida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondon

Personalised recommendations