Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Runtime Verification for LTL and TLTL

Published: 01 September 2011 Publication History

Abstract

This article studies runtime verification of properties expressed either in lineartime temporal logic (LTL) or timed lineartime temporal logic (TLTL). It classifies runtime verification in identifying its distinguishing features to model checking and testing, respectively. It introduces a three-valued semantics (with truth values true, false, inconclusive) as an adequate interpretation as to whether a partial observation of a running system meets an LTL or TLTL property.
For LTL, a conceptually simple monitor generation procedure is given, which is optimal in two respects: First, the size of the generated deterministic monitor is minimal, and, second, the monitor identifies a continuously monitored trace as either satisfying or falsifying a property as early as possible. The feasibility of the developed methodology is demontrated using a collection of real-world temporal logic specifications. Moreover, the presented approach is related to the properties monitorable in general and is compared to existing concepts in the literature. It is shown that the set of monitorable properties does not only encompass the safety and cosafety properties but is strictly larger.
For TLTL, the same road map is followed by first defining a three-valued semantics. The corresponding construction of a timed monitor is more involved, yet, as shown, possible.

References

[1]
Aho, A., Sethi, R., and Ullman, J. 1986. Compilers: Principles and Techniques and Tools. Addison-Wesley.
[2]
Allan, C., Avgustinov, P., Christensen, A. S., Hendren, L. J., Kuzins, S., Lhoták, O., de Moor, O., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., and Tibble, J. 2005. Adding trace matching with free variables to aspectj. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). 345--364.
[3]
Alpern, B. and Schneider, F. B. 1987. Recognizing safety and liveness. Distrib. Comput. 2, 3, 117--126.
[4]
Alur, R. and Dill, D. L. 1994. A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126, 2, 183--235.
[5]
Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., and Dill, D. L. 1993. Model-checking in dense real-time. Inform. Computat. 104, 1, 2--34.
[6]
Alur, R., Fix, L., and Henzinger, T. A. 1999. Event-clock automata: a determinizable class of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 1--2, 253--273.
[7]
Barbon, F., Traverso, P., Pistore, M., and Trainotti, M. 2006. Run-time monitoring of instances and classes of web service compositions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). IEEE Computer Society, 63--71.
[8]
Baresi, L., Guinea, S., and Pasquale, L. 2008. Towards a unified framework for the monitoring and recovery of bpel processes. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Testing, Analysis, and Verification of Web Services and Applications (TAV-WEB). T. Bultan and T. Xie Eds., ACM, 15--19.
[9]
Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., and Sen, K. 2004. Program monitoring with ltl in eagle. In Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS).
[10]
Barringer, H., Rydeheard, D. E., and Havelund, K. 2007. Rule systems for run-time monitoring: From eagle to ruler. In International Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4839, 111--125.
[11]
Bauer, A., Leucker, M., and Schallhart, C. 2006a. Model-based runtime analysis of reactive distributed systems. In Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC). IEEE Computer Society, 243--252.
[12]
Bauer, A., Leucker, M., and Schallhart, C. 2006b. Monitoring of real-time properties. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS). S. Arun-Kumar and N. Garg Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4337, Springer-Verlag, 260--272.
[13]
Bauer, A., Leucker, M., and Schallhart, C. 2007. The good, the bad, and the ugly---but how ugly is ugly? In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4839, Springer-Verlag, 126--138.
[14]
Bauer, A., Leucker, M., and Schallhart, C. 2010. Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Logic Comput. 20, 3, 651--674.
[15]
Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K. G., Håkansson, J., Pettersson, P., Yi, W., and Hendriks, M. 2006. Uppaal 4.0. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluaiton of Systems (QEST). IEEE Computer Society, 125--126.
[16]
Bengtsson, J., Larsen, K. G., Larsson, F., Pettersson, P., and Yi, W. 1996. UPPAAL: a tool suite for the automatic verification of real-time systems. In Hybrid Systems III. R. Alur, T. A. Henzinger, and E. D. Sontag Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1066., Springer-Verlag, 232--243.
[17]
Berg, T., Jonsson, B., Leucker, M., and Saksena, M. 2003. Insights to Angluin’s learning. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Verification and Validation (SVV). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 118, 3--18.
[18]
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E. M., and Zhu, Y. 1999. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). R. Cleaveland Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1579, Springer, 193--207.
[19]
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Strichman, O., and Zhu, Y. 2003. Bounded model checking. In Advances in Computers, vol. 58. Academic Press, 118--149.
[20]
Bodden, E. 2004. A lightweight ltl runtime verification tool for java. In OOPSLA Companion. J. M. Vlissides and D. C. Schmidt Eds., ACM, 306--307.
[21]
Bouyer, P., Chevalier, F., and D’Souza, D. 2005. Fault diagnosis using timed automata. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures (FoSSaCS). V. Sassone Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3441, Springer, 219--233.
[22]
Bryant, R. E. 1985. Symbolic manipulation of boolean functions using a graphical representation. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press, 688--694.
[23]
Büchi, J. 1962. On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. 1--11.
[24]
Chaudhuri, S. and Alur, R. 2007. Instrumenting c programs with nested word monitors. In Proceedings of the International SPIN Workshop. D. Bosnacki and S. Edelkamp Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4595, Springer, 279--283.
[25]
Chechik, M., Devereux, B., and Gurfinkel, A. 2001. Model-checking infinite state-space systems with fine-grained abstractions using spin. In Proceedings of the International SPIN Workshop. M. B. Dwyer Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2057, Springer, 16--36.
[26]
Chen, F. and Rosu, G. 2003. Towards monitoring-oriented programming: A paradigm combining specification and implementation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89, 2.
[27]
Chen, F. and Roşu, G. 2007. MOP: An Efficient and Generic Runtime Verification Framework. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA). 569--588.
[28]
Chow, T. S. 1978. Testing software design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin 4, 3, 178--187.
[29]
Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. A. 1999. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[30]
d’Amorim, M. and Rosu, G. 2005. Efficient monitoring of omega-languages. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3576, 364--378.
[31]
D’Angelo, B., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sánchez, C., Robinson, W., Finkbeiner, B., Sipma, H. B., Mehrotra, S., and Manna, Z. 2005. LOLA: Runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME). 166--174.
[32]
Delgado, N., Gates, A. Q., and Roach, S. 2004. A taxonomy and catalog of runtime software-fault monitoring tools. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 30, 12, 859--872.
[33]
Dewhurst, S. 2002. C++ Gotchas: Avoiding Common Problems in Coding and Design. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA.
[34]
Dill, D. L. 1989. Timing assumptions and verification of finite-state concurrent systems. In Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems. J. Sifakis Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 407, Springer, 197--212.
[35]
D’Souza, D. 2003. A logical characterisation of event clock automata. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 14, 4, 625--639.
[36]
Dwyer, M. B., Avrunin, G. S., and Corbett, J. C. 1999. Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, Computer Society Press, 411--420.
[37]
Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., and Campenhout, D. V. 2003. Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In Proceedings of the International Conference Computer Aided Verification (CAV). W. A. H. Jr. and F. Somenzi Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2725, Springer, 27--39.
[38]
Erlingsson, Ú. and Schneider, F. B. 2000. Sasi enforcement of security policies: A retrospective. Proceedings of the DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition 2, 1287.
[39]
Finkbeiner, B. and Sipma, H. 2004. Checking finite traces using alternating automata. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 24, 2, 101--127.
[40]
Fritz, C. 2003. Constructing Büchi automata from linear temporal logic using simulation relations for alternating büchi automata. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Implementation and Application of Automata (CIAA). O. H. Ibarra and Z. Dang Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2759, Springer, 35--48.
[41]
Gastin, P. and Oddoux, D. 2001. Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2102.
[42]
Geilen, M. 2001. On the construction of monitors for temporal logic properties. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 55, 2.
[43]
Giannakopoulou, D. and Havelund, K. 2001a. Automata-based verification of temporal properties on running programs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE Computer Society, 412--416.
[44]
Giannakopoulou, D. and Havelund, K. 2001b. Runtime analysis of linear temporal logic specifications. Tech. rep. 01.21, RIACS/USRA.
[45]
Goldsmith, S., O’Callahan, R., and Aiken, A. 2005. Relational queries over program traces. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). 385--402.
[46]
Gollu, A., Puri, A., and Varaiya, P. 1994. Discretization of timed automata. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. 957--958.
[47]
Grinchtein, O. and Leucker, M. 2008. Network invariants for real-time systems. Form. Asp. Comput. 20, 619--635.
[48]
Håkansson, J., Jonsson, B., and Lundqvist, O. 2003. Generating online test oracles from temporal logic specifications. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 4, 4, 456--471.
[49]
Havelund, K. and Rosu, G. 2001. Monitoring Java Programs with Java PathExplorer. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 55, 2.
[50]
Havelund, K. and Rosu, G. 2002. Synthesizing Monitors for Safety Properties. In Proceedings of the Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2280, 342--356.
[51]
Havelund, K. and Rosu, G. 2004. Efficient monitoring of safety properties. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 6, 2, 158--173.
[52]
Hopcroft, J. 1971. An n log n algorithm for minimizing states in a finite automation. In Theory of Machines and Computations. 189--196.
[53]
Kamp, H. W. 1968. Tense logic and the theory of linear order. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
[54]
Kim, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O., and Viswanathan, M. 2002. Computational analysis of run-time monitoring/fundamentals of java-mac. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 70, 4.
[55]
Kim, M., Viswanathan, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., and Sokolsky, O. 2004. Java-mac: A run-time assurance approach for java programs. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 24, 2, 129--155.
[56]
Kopetz, H. 1991. Event-triggered versus time-triggered real-time systems. In Operating Systems of the 90s and Beyond. A. I. Karshmer and J. Nehmer Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 563, Springer, 87--101.
[57]
Kupferman, O. and Vardi, M. Y. 2001. Model checking of safety properties. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 19, 3, 291--314.
[58]
Lamport, L. 1977. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 3, 2, 125--143.
[59]
Lichtenstein, O. and Pnueli, A. 1985. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proceedings of the Conference on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York, 97--107.
[60]
Maler, O. and Nickovic, D. 2004. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conferences on Formal Modelling and Analysis of Timed Systems/Formal Techniques, Modelling and Analysis of Timed and Fault-Tolerant Systems (FORMATS/FTRTFT). Y. Lakhnech and S. Yovine Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3253, Springer, 152--166.
[61]
Manna, Z. and Pnueli, A. 1995. Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, New York.
[62]
Markey, N. and Schnoebelen, P. 2003. Model checking a path. In Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2761, 248--262.
[63]
Martin, M. C., Livshits, V. B., and Lam, M. S. 2005. Finding application errors and security flaws using pql: a program query language. In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). 365--383.
[64]
Peled, D., Vardi, M., and Yannakakis, M. 1999. Black box checking. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols and Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (FORTE/PSTV). Kluwer, 225--240.
[65]
Pnueli, A. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE Computer Society Press, 46--57.
[66]
Pnueli, A. and Zaks, A. 2006. PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM). J. Misra, T. Nipkow, and E. Sekerinski Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4085, Springer, 573--586.
[67]
Raskin, J.-F. 1999. Logics, automata and classical theories for deciding real-time. Ph.D. thesis, Namur, Belgium.
[68]
Raskin, J.-F. and Schobbens, P.-Y. 1999. The logic of event clocks---decidability, complexity and expressiveness. J. Autom. Lang. Combina. 4, 3, 247--286.
[69]
Robinson, W. 2006. A requirements monitoring framework for enterprise systems. Require. Engin. 11, 1, 17--41.
[70]
Rosu, G. and Bensalem, S. 2006. Allen linear (interval) temporal logic - translation to LTL and monitor synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). T. Ball and R. B. Jones Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4144, Springer, 263--277.
[71]
Schwoon, S. and Esparza, J. 2005. A note on on-the-fly verification algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3440, 174--190.
[72]
Sen, K. and Rosu, G. 2003. Generating optimal monitors for extended regular expressions. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 89, 2.
[73]
Sistla, A. P. and Clarke, E. M. 1985. Complexity of propositional temporal logics. J. ACM 32, 733--749.
[74]
Stolz, V. and Bodden, E. 2006. Temporal assertions using AspectJ. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 144, 4, 109--124.
[75]
Stroustrup, B. 2000. The C++ Programming Language Special Ed. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
[76]
Tarjan, R. 1972. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 1, 2, 146--160.
[77]
Thati, P. and Rosu, G. 2005. Monitoring algorithms for metric temporal logic specifications. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 113, 145--162.
[78]
Tripakis, S. 2002. Fault diagnosis for timed automata. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT). W. Damm and E.-R. Olderog Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2469, Springer, 205--224.
[79]
Tripakis, S. and Yovine, S. 2001. Analysis of timed systems using time-abstracting bisimulations. Form. Meth. Syst. Des. 18, 1, 25--68.
[80]
Vardi, M. Y. 1996. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In Logics for Concurrency: Structure Versus Automata. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1043, 238--266.
[81]
Vardi, M. Y. and Wolper, P. 1986. An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). IEEE Computer Society Press, 332--345.
[82]
Vasilevski, M. 1973. Failure diagnosis of automata. Cybernetic 9, 4, 653--665.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Towards partial monitoring: Never too early to give inScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2024.103220240(103220)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Monitoring Second-Order HyperpropertiesProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662865(180-188)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
  • (2024)Semantics for Linear-time Temporal Logic with Finite ObservationsElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.412.4412(35-50)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 20, Issue 4
September 2011
242 pages
ISSN:1049-331X
EISSN:1557-7392
DOI:10.1145/2000799
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2011
Accepted: 01 August 2009
Revised: 01 July 2009
Received: 01 September 2008
Published in TOSEM Volume 20, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Assertion checkers
  2. monitors
  3. runtime verification

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)203
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Towards partial monitoring: Never too early to give inScience of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2024.103220240(103220)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Monitoring Second-Order HyperpropertiesProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662865(180-188)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
  • (2024)Semantics for Linear-time Temporal Logic with Finite ObservationsElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.412.4412(35-50)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Verification of Behavior Trees with Contingency MonitorsElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.411.4411(56-72)Online publication date: 21-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Runtime Verified Neural Networks for Cyber-Physical SystemsProceedings of the 7th ACM International Workshop on Verification and Monitoring at Runtime Execution10.1145/3679008.3685547(44-51)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Checking Complex Source Code-Level Constraints using Runtime VerificationCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3663529.3663845(255-265)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Column: Is Theory (Still) Welcome in Software Engineering Research?ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes10.1145/3650142.365014849:2(19-21)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Static and Dynamic Analysis of a Usage Control SystemProceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies10.1145/3649158.3657038(59-70)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Diagnosing Violations of Time-based Properties Captured in iCFTLProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 12th International Conference on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE)10.1145/3644033.3644375(33-43)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Temporal Behavior Trees: Robustness and SegmentationProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control10.1145/3641513.3650180(1-14)Online publication date: 14-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media