Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Thoughts on Runtime Verification

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Runtime Verification (RV 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10012))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Some reflections on verification and runtime verification in general and of cyber-physical systems in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Speaking about control, “reachability” (and to some extent “controllability”) used not long ago to denote some very precise technical term in the Kalmanistic theory of linear systems before some barbarians came and kidnapped its meaning. As a punishment we have sometime to hear colleagues from others disciplines abuse theoretical computer science sacred terms such as decidability or models of computation.

  2. 2.

    The term formal language provides yet another opportunity for terminological confusion. In theoretical computer science a formal language is nothing but a set of sequences, something very semantic in our context.

  3. 3.

    I am indebted to a discussion with Yaron Wolfsthal before starting this project, in which he explained to me the workings of the FOCS property checker developed at IBM for discrete/digital systems.

  4. 4.

    The advantage of dense time as used in MTL or in timed automata is in not committing to a fixed time step such as the clock tick in digital circuits. Otherwise, the major advantage of timed logics and automata is not in density but in the ability to reason about time arithmetically rather than by counting ticks. More opinions on timed systems can be found in [21].

  5. 5.

    No program, no matter how thoroughly verified, will produce the correct result if you hit the computer with a hammer or just unplug it from power.

  6. 6.

    This fact renders our early heroic CS efforts to prove decidability results on hybrid systems somewhat misguided, at least from an applicative point of view. In one of the early hybrid systems meetings I organized in Grenoble in the 90s, Paul Caspi presented a cartoon of a dialog between a control engineer, saying: it is trivial and a theoretical computer scientist responding: it is undecidable!. But the noble activity of doing math for its own sake is common in all academic engineering domains, control included.

  7. 7.

    Kurt Vonnegut’s quote Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder ‘why, why, why?’ can be rephrased as Governors govern and airplanes fly; It takes a computer scientist to wonder why.

  8. 8.

    Are all the things that we want to monitor restricted to prefixes of behaviors that lead to a violation of the specifications? I do not have an answer at this moment and it probably depends also on whether we are in the hard (safety critical) or soft (quality of service) domain. It is also related to whether numerical quantities are involved: the car fuel indicator shows continuously the value of a real-valued variable and, in addition, emits a warning when it crosses a threshold.

References

  1. Annapureddy, Y., Liu, C., Fainekos, G.E., Sankaranarayanan, S., S-TaLiRo: a tool for temporal logic falsification for hybrid systems. In: TACAS, pp. 254–257 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asarin, E., Caspi, P., Maler, O.: Timed regular expressions. J. ACM 49(2), 172–206 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). doi:10.1007/BFb0025774

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. d’Angelo, B., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sanchez, C., Robinson, W., Finkbeiner, B., Sipma, H.B., Mehrotra, S., Manna, Z., Lola: Runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In: TIME, pp. 166–174 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deshmukh, J., Jin, X., Kapinski, J., Maler, O.: Stochastic local search for falsification of hybrid systems. In: Finkbeiner, B., Pu, G., Zhang, L. (eds.) ATVA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9364, pp. 500–517. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24953-7_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Donzé, A., Ferrère, T., Maler, O.: Efficient robust monitoring for STL. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 264–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Donzé, A., Maler, O.: Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals. In: Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) FORMATS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6246, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15297-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Donzé, A.: Breach, a toolbox for verification and parameter synthesis of hybrid systems. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 167–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14295-6_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Campenhout, D.: Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In: Hunt, W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45069-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Fainekos, G.E., Pappas, G.J.: Robustness of temporal logic specifications for continuous-time signals. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 410(42), 4262–4291 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Falcone, Y.: You should better enforce than verify. In: Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Finkbeiner, B., Havelund, K., Lee, I., Pace, G., Roşu, G., Sokolsky, O., Tillmann, N. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrère, T., Maler, O., Ničković, D., Ulus, D.: Measuring with timed patterns. In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9207, pp. 322–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21668-3_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Halpern, J.Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking vs. theorem proving: a manifesto. Artif. Intell. Math. Theory Comput. 212, 151–176 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Harel, D., Pnueli, A.: On the development of reactive systems. In: Apt, K.R. (ed.) Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pp. 477–498. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Jin, X., Donzé, A., Deshmukh, J.V., Seshia, S.A.: Mining requirements from closed-loop control models. In: HSCC (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kesten, Y., Pnueli, A.: A compositional approach to CTL\(^*\) verification. Theoretical Computer Science 331(2–3), 397–428 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Koymans, R.: Specifying real-time properties with metric temporal logic. Real-Time Syst. 2(4), 255–299 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maler, O.: Hybrid systems and real-world computations (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maler, O.: Control from computer science. Ann. Rev. Control 26(2), 175–187 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Maler, O.: Amir Pnueli and the dawn of hybrid systems. In: HSCC, pp. 293–295. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Maler, O.: The unmet challenge of timed systems. In: From Programs to Systems (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maler, O., Nickovic, D.: Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In: Lakhnech, Y., Yovine, S. (eds.) FORMATS/FTRTFT -2004. LNCS, vol. 3253, pp. 152–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30206-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Maler, O., Nickovic, D., Pnueli, A.: From MITL to timed automata. In: Asarin, E., Bouyer, P. (eds.) FORMATS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4202, pp. 274–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11867340_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Maler, O., Nickovic, D., Pnueli, A.: On synthesizing controllers from bounded-response properties. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 95–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73368-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Maler, O., Nickovic, D., Pnueli, A.: Checking temporal properties of discrete, timed and continuous behaviors. In: Avron, A., Dershowitz, N., Rabinovich, A. (eds.) Pillars of Computer Science. LNCS, pp. 475–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer, Berlin (1993)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Nickovic, D.: Checking timed, hybrid properties: theory and applications. Ph.D. thesis, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: On the merits of temporal testers. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 172–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69850-0_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). doi:10.1007/3-540-11494-7_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Rizk, A., Batt, G., Fages, F., Soliman, S.: A general computational method for robustness analysis with applications to synthetic gene networks. Bioinformatics 25(12), 169–78 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sankaranarayanan, S., Fainekos, G.E.: Falsification of temporal properties of hybrid systems using the cross-entropy method. In: HSCC (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shea, R., Wilson, R.A.: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Dell Publishing, New York (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sifakis, J.: Rigorous system design. Found. Trends Electron. Des. Autom. 6(4), 293–362 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sifakis, J.: System design automation: challenges and limitations. Proc. IEEE 103(11), 2093–2103 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ulus, D., Ferrère, T., Asarin, E., Maler, O.: Timed pattern matching. In: Legay, A., Bozga, M. (eds.) FORMATS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8711, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10512-3_16

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ulus, D., Ferrère, T., Asarin, E., Maler, O.: Online timed pattern matching using derivatives. In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 736–751. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Varaiya, P.: A question about hierarchical systems. In: Djaferis, T.E., Schick, I.C. (eds.) System Theory, pp. 313–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Moshe, Y.: Vardi and Pierre Wolper. an automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: LICS (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson, R.A.: Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You & Your World. New Falcon Publication, New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This text benefitted from feedback given by Eugene Asarin, Jyo Deshmukh, Jim Kapinski, Dejan Nickovic, Joseph Sifakis and Dogan Ulus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VERIMAG, CNRS and the University of Grenoble Alpes (UGA), Bat. IMAG, 700 av. Centrale, 38041, St Martin d’heres, France

    Oded Maler

Authors
  1. Oded Maler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oded Maler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Grenoble Alpes, Inria, Grenoble, France

    Yliès Falcone

  2. IMDEA Software Institute, Madrid, Spain

    César Sánchez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Maler, O. (2016). Some Thoughts on Runtime Verification. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds) Runtime Verification. RV 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10012. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46981-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46982-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation