Runtime verification: the application perspective

  • Yliès FalconeEmail author
  • Lenore D. Zuck


In the past decade, runtime verification (RV) has gained much focus, from both the research community and practitioners. RV combines a set of theories, techniques and tools aiming towards efficient analysis of systems’ executions and guaranteeing their correctness using monitoring techniques. Major challenges in RV include characterizing and formally expressing requirements that can be monitored, offering intuitive and concise specification formalisms, and monitoring specifications efficiently for functional and non-functional behavior. Despite the major strides made in recent years, much effort is still needed to make RV an attractive and viable methodology for industrial use and to apply it to wider application domains, such as security, bio-health, power micro-grids. This special issue of STTT proposes extended versions of four papers that have been selected from the runtime verification track at ISoLA 2012 (Margaria and Steffen, Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on leveraging applications of formal methods, verification and validation, 2012).


Runtime verification Applications Statistical model checking Expressiveness Efficiency 



We would like to thank the organizing committees of ISoLA 2012 for setting up such a successful event, the programme committee and reviewers of the conference and the special issue of STTT for helping with the selection of papers, and all authors who contributed to the track. We would especially like to thank the authors for providing us with such excellent papers, and the referees for their diligent work.


  1. 1.
    Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: FM 2012, 18th International Symposium on Formal Methods, Paris, France, 27–31 August 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7436, pp. 65–79 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barringer, H., Rydeheard, D.E., Havelund, K.: Rule systems for run-time monitoring: from Eagle to RuleR. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 675–706 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    David, A., Larsen, K.G., Legay, A., Mikučionis, M.: Schedulability of Herschel–Planck revisited using statistical model checking. In: STTT (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.-C., Mounier, L.: Runtime verification of safety-progress properties. In: Bensalem, S., Peled, D. (eds.) Runtime Verification, 9th International Workshop, RV 2009, Grenoble, France, 26–28 June 2009. Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5779, pp. 40–59. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G.: 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, vol. 34. Information and Communication Security, pp. 141–175. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hallé, S., Vallet, J., Tremblay-Lessard, R.: On piggyback runtime monitoring of object-oriented programs. In: STTT (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Havelund, K.: Rule-based runtime verification revisited. In: STTT (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Havelund, K., Goldberg, A.: Verify your runs. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4171, pp. 374–383. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Log. Algebraic Progr. 78(5), 293–303 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, ISoLA 2012, Amirandes, Heraclion, Crete, 15–18 October 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nouri, A., Bensalem, S., Bozga, B.D.M., Jegourel, C.,Legay, A.: Statistical model checking QOS properties of systems with SBIP. In: STTT (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4085, pp. 573–586. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Runtime Verification: (2001–2014). Accessed 4 Jan 2014
  14. 14.
    Younes, H.L.S.: Verification and planning for stochastic processes with asynchronous events. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique de GrenobleUniversity of Grenoble I (UJF)Grenoble France
  2. 2.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations