Automatic Generation of Self-monitoring MASs from Multiparty Global Session Types in Jason

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7784)


Global session types are behavioral types designed for specifying in a compact way multiparty interactions between distributed components, and verifying their correctness. We take advantage of the fact that global session types can be naturally represented as cyclic Prolog terms - which are directly supported by the Jason implementation of AgentSpeak - to allow simple automatic generation of self-monitoring MASs: given a global session type specifying an interaction protocol, and the implementation of a MAS where agents are expected to be compliant with it, we define a procedure for automatically deriving a self-monitoring MAS. Such a generated MAS ensures that agents conform to the protocol at run-time, by adding a monitor agent that checks that the ongoing conversation is correct w.r.t. the global session type.

The feasibility of the approach has been experimented in Jason for a non-trivial example involving recursive global session types with alternative choice and fork type constructors. Although the main aim of this work is the development of a unit testing framework for MASs, the proposed approach can be also extended to implement a framework supporting self-recovering MASs.


Multiagent System Automatic Generation Belief Base Transition Step Interaction Protocol 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: The SCIFF Abductive Proof-Procedure. In: Bandini, S., Manzoni, S. (eds.) AI*IA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3673, pp. 135–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ancona, D., Barbieri, M., Mascardi, V.: Global Types for Dynamic Checking of Protocol Conformance of Multi-Agent Systems (Extended Abstract). In: Massazza, P. (ed.) ICTCS 2012, pp. 39–43 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ancona, D., Barbieri, M., Mascardi, V.: Constrained global types for dynamic checking of protocol conformance in multi-agent systems. In: SAC 2013. ACM (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arbab, F., Baier, C., de Boer, F.S., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Models and temporal logical specifications for timed component connectors. Software and System Modeling 6(1), 59–82 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baier, C., Sirjani, M., Arbab, F., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Modeling component connectors in Reo by constraint automata. Sci. Comput. Program. 61(2), 75–113 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Verification of Protocol Conformance and Agent Interoperability. In: Toni, F., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA VI. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3900, pp. 265–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Moldt, D., Lamersdorf, W.: Goal Representation for BDI Agent Systems. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3346, pp. 44–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured Communication-Centred Programming for Web Services. In: De Nicola, R. (ed.) ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL: a practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deniélou, P.-M., Yoshida, N.: Multiparty Session Types Meet Communicating Automata. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) ESOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 194–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Mostrous, D., Yoshida, N., Drossopoulou, S.: Session Types for Object-Oriented Languages. In: Thomas, D. (ed.) ECOOP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4067, pp. 328–352. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Yoshida, N., Ahern, A., Drossopoulou, S.: A Distributed Object-Oriented Language with Session Types. In: De Nicola, R., Sangiorgi, D. (eds.) TGC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3705, pp. 299–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grigore, C., Collier, R.: Supporting agent systems in the programming language. In: WI/IAT, pp. 9–12. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google 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.
    Hu, R., Kouzapas, D., Pernet, O., Yoshida, N., Honda, K.: Type-Safe Eventful Sessions in Java. In: D’Hondt, T. (ed.) ECOOP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6183, pp. 329–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Huget, M.-P., Bauer, B., Odell, J., Levy, R., Turci, P., Cervenka, R., Zhu, H.: FIPA modeling: Interaction diagrams. Working Draft Version (July 02, 2003),
  18. 18.
    Mascardi, V., Ancona, D., Bordini, R.H., Ricci, A.: CooL-AgentSpeak: Enhancing AgentSpeak-DL agents with plan exchange and ontology services. In: IAT 2011, pp. 109–116. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mostrous, D., Vasconcelos, V.T.: Session Typing for a Featherweight Erlang. In: De Meuter, W., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2011. LNCS, vol. 6721, pp. 95–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents Speak Out in a Logical Computable Language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sackman, M., Eisenbach, S.: Session types in Haskell: Updating message passing for the 21st century. Technical report, Imperial College, Department of Computing (2008),
  22. 22.
    Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K.: Correctness Properties for Multiagent Systems. In: Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Lloyd, J. (eds.) DALT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5948, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torroni, P., Yolum, P., Singh, M.P., Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Modelling interactions via commitments and expectations. In: Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIBRISUniversity of GenovaItaly
  2. 2.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations