Four-Valued Monitorability of -Regular Languages
Pages 198 - 214
Abstract
The use of runtime verification has led to interest in deciding whether a property is monitorable: whether it is always possible for the satisfaction or violation of the property to be determined after a finite future continuation during system execution. However, classical two-valued monitorability suffers from two inherent limitations, which eventually increase runtime overhead. First, no information is available regarding whether only one verdict (satisfaction or violation) can be detected. Second, it does not tell us whether verdicts can be detected starting from the current monitor state during system execution.
This paper proposes a new notion of four-valued monitorability for -languages and applies it at the state-level. Four-valued monitorability is more informative than two-valued monitorability as a property can be evaluated as a four-valued result, denoting that only satisfaction, only violation, or both are active for a monitorable property. We can also compute state-level weak monitorability, i.e., whether satisfaction or violation can be detected starting from a given state in a monitor, which enables state-level optimizations of monitoring algorithms. Based on a new six-valued semantics, we propose procedures for computing four-valued monitorability of -regular languages, both at the language-level and at the state-level. Experimental results show that our tool implementation Monic can correctly, and quickly, report both two-valued and four-valued monitorability.
References
[1]
Aceto L, Achilleos A, Francalanza A, and Ingólfsdóttir A Baier C and Dal Lago U A framework for parameterized monitorability Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures 2018 Cham Springer 203-220
[2]
Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lehtinen, K.: Adventures in monitorability: from branching to linear time and back again. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages,(POPL 2019), vol. 3, pp. 52:1–52:29 (2019)
[3]
Aceto L, Achilleos A, Francalanza A, Ingólfsdóttir A, and Lehtinen K Ölveczky PC and Salaün G An operational guide to monitorability Software Engineering and Formal Methods 2019 Cham Springer 433-453
[4]
Allan, C., et al.: Adding trace matching with free variables to AspectJ. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2005, pp. 345–364. ACM (2005)
[5]
Avgustinov, P., Tibble, J., de Moor, O.: Making trace monitors feasible. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2007, pp. 589–608. ACM (2007)
[6]
Bartocci E, Falcone Y, Francalanza A, and Reger G Bartocci E and Falcone Y Introduction to runtime verification Lectures on Runtime Verification 2018 Cham Springer 1-33
[7]
Bauer, A.: Monitorability of -regular languages. CoRR abs/1006.3638 (2010)
[8]
Bauer A, Leucker M, and Schallhart C Sokolsky O and Taşıran S The good, the bad, and the ugly, but how ugly is ugly? Runtime Verification 2007 Heidelberg Springer 126-138
[9]
Bauer A, Leucker M, and Schallhart C Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification J. Log. Comput. 2010 20 3 651-674
[10]
Bauer A, Leucker M, and Schallhart C Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 2011 20 4 14
[11]
Chen, F., Rosu, G.: MOP: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2007, pp. 569–588. ACM (2007)
[12]
Chen Z Parametric runtime verification is NP-complete and coNP-complete Inf. Process. Lett. 2017 123 14-20
[13]
Chen Z, Wang Z, Zhu Y, Xi H, and Yang Z Chechik M and Raskin J-F Parametric runtime verification of C programs Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems 2016 Heidelberg Springer 299-315
[14]
Chen, Z., Wu, Y., Wei, O., Sheng, B.: Deciding weak monitorability for runtime verification. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2018, pp. 163–164. ACM (2018)
[15]
d’Amorim M and Roşu G Etessami K and Rajamani SK Efficient monitoring of -Languages Computer Aided Verification 2005 Heidelberg Springer 364-378
[16]
Diekert V and Leucker M Topology, monitorable properties and runtime verification Theor. Comput. Sci. 2014 537 29-41
[17]
Drusinsky D Havelund K, Penix J, and Visser W The temporal rover and the ATG rover SPIN Model Checking and Software Verification 2000 Heidelberg Springer 323-330
[18]
Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. ACM (1999)
[19]
Falcone Y, Fernandez J-C, and Mounier L Bensalem S and Peled DA Runtime verification of safety-progress properties Runtime Verification 2009 Heidelberg Springer 40-59
[20]
Falcone Y, Fernandez JC, and Mounier L What can you verify and enforce at runtime? Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 2012 14 3 349-382
[21]
Francalanza A Jacobs B and Löding C A theory of monitors Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures 2016 Heidelberg Springer 145-161
[22]
Francalanza A et al. Lahiri S, Reger G, et al. A foundation for runtime monitoring Runtime Verification 2017 Cham Springer 8-29
[23]
Francalanza A, Aceto L, and Ingólfsdóttir A Monitorability for the Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion Formal Methods Syst. Design 2017 51 1 87-116
[24]
Geilen M On the construction of monitors for temporal logic properties Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 2001 55 2 181-199
[25]
Havelund K Suzuki K, Higashino T, Ulrich A, and Hasegawa T Runtime verification of C programs Testing of Software and Communicating Systems 2008 Heidelberg Springer 7-22
[26]
Havelund K and Reger G Aceto L, Bacci G, Bacci G, Ingólfsdóttir A, Legay A, and Mardare R Runtime verification logics a language design perspective Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools 2017 Cham Springer 310-338
[27]
Havelund K, Reger G, Thoma D, and Zălinescu E Bartocci E and Falcone Y Monitoring events that carry data Lectures on Runtime Verification 2018 Cham Springer 61-102
[28]
Havelund K and Roşu G Katoen J-P and Stevens P Synthesizing monitors for safety properties Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems 2002 Heidelberg Springer 342-356
[29]
Havelund K and Roşu G Colombo C and Leucker M Runtime verification - 17 years later Runtime Verification 2018 Cham Springer 3-17
[30]
Kauffman S, Havelund K, and Fischmeister S Finkbeiner B and Mariani L Monitorability over unreliable channels Runtime Verification 2019 Cham Springer 256-272
[31]
Kupferman O and Vardi MY Model checking of safety properties Formal Methods Syst. Design 2001 19 3 291-314
[32]
Leucker M and Schallhart C A brief account of runtime verification J. Logic Algebraic Program. 2009 78 5 293-303
[33]
Manna Z and Pnueli A The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification 1992 Heidelberg Springer
[34]
Meredith PO, Jin D, Griffith D, Chen F, and Rosu G An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 2012 14 3 249-289
[35]
Peled D and Havelund K Margaria T, Graf S, and Larsen KG Refining the safety–liveness classification of temporal properties according to monitorability Models, Mindsets, Meta: The What, the How, and the Why Not? 2019 Cham Springer 218-234
[36]
Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of FOCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society (1977)
[37]
Pnueli A and Zaks A Misra J, Nipkow T, and Sekerinski E PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers FM 2006: Formal Methods 2006 Heidelberg Springer 573-586
[38]
Rosu G and Chen F Semantics and algorithms for parametric monitoring Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 2012 8 1 1-47
Index Terms
- Four-Valued Monitorability of -Regular Languages
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Adventures in monitorability: from branching to linear time and back again
This paper establishes a comprehensive theory of runtime monitorability for Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion, a very expressive variant of the modal µ-calculus. It investigates the monitorability of that logic with a linear-time semantics and then ...
Monitorability for the Hennessy---Milner logic with recursion
We study $$\mu $$μ HML, a branching-time logic with least and greatest fixpoints, from a runtime verification perspective. The logic may be used to specify properties of programs whose behaviour may be expressed as a labelled transition system. We ...
An operational guide to monitorability with applications to regular properties
AbstractMonitorability underpins the technique of runtime verification because it delineates what properties can be verified at runtime. Although many monitorability definitions exist, few are defined explicitly in terms of the operational guarantees ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Mar 2020
337 pages
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 01 March 2020
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024