Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 1–4 | Cite as

Introduction to the special issue on runtime verification

  • Ezio BartocciEmail author
  • Rupak Majumdar


Runtime verification (RV) consists of a broad collection of light-weight scalable analysis techniques to verify and to guarantee at runtime important properties such as correctness, safety, reliability, security, and robustness. The papers in this special issue address some of the RV core problems providing an overview of a wide range of application domains where RV tools and techniques are currently employed. The papers are based on selected contributions from the 2015 Conference on Runtime Verification, an annual forum for scientists from both academia and industry to discuss on how to monitor, analyze and guide the execution of programs and from the 2015 Workshop on Static Analysis meets Runtime Verification.


Runtime verification Monitoring Assertion checking 


  1. 1.
    Ahrendt W, Chimento JM, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2017) Verifying data- and control-oriented properties combining static and runtime verification: theory and tools. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0274-y
  2. 2.
    Bartocci E, Bortolussi L, Nenzi L (2013) A temporal logic approach to modular design of synthetic biological circuits. In: Proceedings of CMSB 2013: the 11th international conference on computational methods in systems biology, pp 164–177. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40708-6_13
  3. 3.
    Bartocci E, Falcone Y, Bonakdarpour B, Colombo C, Decker N, Havelund K, Joshi Y, Klaedtke F, Milewicz R, Reger G, Rosu G, Signoles J, Thoma D, Zalinescu E, Zhang Y (2017) First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10009-017-0454-5 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartocci E, Lió P (2016) Computational modeling, formal analysis, and tools for systems biology. PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004591 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozzelli L, Sánchez C (2016) Foundations of boolean stream runtime verification. Theor Comput Sci 631:118–138. doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2016.04.019 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bufo S, Bartocci E, Sanguinetti G, Borelli M, Lucangelo U, Bortolussi L (2014) Temporal logic based monitoring of assisted ventilation in intensive care patients. In: Steffen B, Margaria T (eds) Proceedings of ISoLA 2014: 6th international symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation, LNCS, vol 8803, pp 391–403. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45231-8
  7. 7.
    Cameron F, Fainekos GE, Maahs DM, Sankaranarayanan S (2015) Towards a verified artificial pancreas: challenges and solutions for runtime verification. In: Proceedings of RV 2015: the 6th international conference on runtime verification, LNCS, vol 9333, pp 3–17. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_1
  8. 8.
    Deshmukh JV, Donzé A, Ghosh S, Jin X, Juniwal G, Seshia SA (2017) Robust online monitoring of signal temporal logic. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0286-7
  9. 9.
    Donzé A, Ferrère T, Maler O (2013) Efficient robust monitoring for STL. In: Proceedings of CAV 2013: the 25th international conference on computer aided verification, LNCS, vol 8044, pp 264–279. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_19
  10. 10.
    Donzé A, Maler O, Bartocci E, Nickovic D, Grosu R, Smolka SA (2012) On temporal logic and signal processing. In: Chakraborty S , Mukund M (eds) Proceedings of ATVA 2012: 10th international symposium on automated technology for verification and analysis, Thiruvananthapuram, October 3–6. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7561, pp 92–106. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33386-6_9
  11. 11.
    Falcone Y, Havelund K, Reger G (2013) A tutorial on runtime verification. In: Broy M, Peled D, Kalus G (eds) Engineering dependable software systems, NATO science for peace and security series, D: information and communication security, vol 34. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 141–175. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-207-3-141 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Francalanza A, Aceto L, Ingolfsdottir A (2017) Monitorability for the Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0273-z
  13. 13.
    Jaksic S, Bartocci E, Grosu R, Kloibhofer R, Nguyen T, Nickovic D (2015) From signal temporal logic to FPGA monitors. In: Proceedings of MEMOCODE 2015: the 13th ACM–IEEE international conference on formal methods and models for system design. ACM, pp 218–227. doi: 10.1109/MEMCOD.2015.7340489
  14. 14.
    Kassem A, Falcone Y, Lafourcade P (2017) Formal analysis and offline monitoring of electronic exams. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0280-0
  15. 15.
    Larsen KG (1990) Proof systems for satisfiability in hennessy-milner logic with recursion. Theor Comput Sci 72(2&3):265–288. doi: 10.1016/0304-3975(90)90038-J MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leucker M, Schallhart C (2009) A brief account of runtime verification. J Log Algebr Program 78(5):293–303. doi: 10.1016/j.jlap.2008.08.004 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maler O, Nickovic D (2013) Monitoring properties of analog and mixed-signal circuits. STTT 15(3):247–268. doi: 10.1007/s10009-012-0247-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moosbrugger PC, Rozier KY, Schumann J (2017) R2U2: monitoring and diagnosis of security threats for unmanned aerial systems. Formal Methods in Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0275-x
  19. 19.
    Phan D, Yang J, Grosu R, Smolka SA, Stoller SD (2017) Collision avoidance for mobile robots with limited sensing and limited information about moving obstacles. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-016-0265-4
  20. 20.
    Pinisetty S, Preoteasa V, Tripakis S, Jéron T, Falcone Y, Marchand H (2017) Predictive runtime enforcement. Formal Methods Syst Des. doi: 10.1007/s10703-017-0271-1
  21. 21.
    Rodionova A, Bartocci E, Nickovic D, Grosu R (2016) Temporal logic as filtering. In: Proceedings of HSCC 2016: the 19th international conference on hybrid systems, pp 11–20. ACM. doi: 10.1145/2883817
  22. 22.
    Sha L (2001) Using simplicity to control complexity. IEEE Softw 18(4):20–28. doi: 10.1109/MS.2001.936213 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tuncali CE, Pavlic TP, Fainekos GE (2016) Utilizing S-TaLiRo as an automatic test generation framework for autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of ITSC 2016: the 19th IEEE international conference on intelligent transportation, pp 1470–1475. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795751

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer EngineeringTU WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Software SystemsKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations