Advertisement

Efficient Monitoring of ω-Languages

  • Marcelo d’Amorim
  • Grigore Roşu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3576)

Abstract

We present a technique for generating efficient monitors for ω-regular-languages. We show how Büchi automata can be reduced in size and transformed into special, statistically optimal nondeterministic finite state machines, called binary transition tree finite state machines (BTT-FSMs), which recognize precisely the minimal bad prefixes of the original ω-regular-language. The presented technique is implemented as part of a larger monitoring framework and is available for download.

Keywords

State Machine Model Check Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Runtime Overhead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Artho, C., Drusinsky, D., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Lowry, M., Păsăreanu, C., Roşu, G., Visser, W., Washington, R.: Automated Testing using Symbolic Execution and Temporal Monitoring. Theoretical Computer Sci. (2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-Based Runtime Verification. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Landver, A.: On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas. In: CAV 1998, pp. 184–194. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Büchi, J.R.: On a Decision Method in Restricted Second Order Arithmetic. In: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1962)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, F., d’Amorim, M., Roşu, G.: A Formal Monitoring-Based Framework for Software Development and Analysis. In: Davies, J., Schulte, W., Barnett, M. (eds.) ICFEM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3308, pp. 357–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, F., Roşu, G.: Towards Monitoring-Oriented Programming: A Paradigm Combining Specification and Implementation. In: Proceedings of RV 2003. ENTCS, vol. 89, pp. 106–125 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    d’Amorim, M., Roşu, G.: Efficient monitoring of ω-languages. Technical Report UIUCDCS-R-2005-2530, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (March 2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dudani, S., Geada, J., Jakacki, G., Vainer, D.: Dynamic Assertions Using TXP. ENTCS, vol. 55(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Etessami, K., Holzmann, G.: Optimizing Büchi Automata. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ezick, J.: An Optimizing Compiler for Batches of Temporal Logic Formulas. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2004, pp. 183–194. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gastin, P., Oddoux, D.: LTL with Past and Two-Way Very-Weak Alternating Automata. In: Rovan, B., Vojtáš, P. (eds.) MFCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2747, pp. 439–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geilen, M.: On the Construction of Monitors for Temporal Logic Properties. In: Proceedings of RV 2001. ENTCS, vol. 55. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly Automatic Verification of Linear Temporal Logic. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP WG6.1 International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV, pp. 3–18. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., Boca Raton (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Monitoring Java Programs with Java PathExplorer. In: Proceedings of RV 2001. ENTCS, vol. 55. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Workshops on Runtime Verification (RV 2001, RV 2002, RV 2004). ENTCS, vol. 55, 70(4). Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001, 2002, 2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Synthesizing monitors for safety properties. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzmann, G.: The Model Checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kesten, Y., Manna, Z., McGuire, H., Pnueli, A.: A Decision Algorithm for Full Propositional Temporal Logic. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 97–109. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Java-MaC: a Run-time Assurance Tool for Java. In: Proceedings of RV 2001. ENTCS, vol. 55. Elsevier Sci., Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model Checking of Safety Properties. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 172–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markey, N.: Temporal Logic with Past is Exponentially more Succinct. EATCS Bulletin 79, 122–128 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moret, B.: Decision Trees and Diagrams. ACM Comp. Surv. 14(4), 593–623 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oddoux, D., Gastin, P.: LTL2BA, http://www.liafa.jussieu.fr/~oddoux/ltl2ba/
  27. 27.
    Roşu, G., Havelund, K.: Rewriting-Based Techniques for Runtime Verification. Journal of Automated Software Engineering 12(2), 151–197 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruf, J., Hoffmann, D., Kropf, T., Rosenstiel, W.: Simulation-Guided Property Checking Based on Multi-Valued AR-Automata. In: Proceedings of DATE 2001, London, UK, pp. 742–749. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sen, K., Roşu, G., Agha, G.: Online Efficient Predictive Safety Analysis of Multithreaded Programs. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 123–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The Complexity of Propositional Linear Temporal Logics. Journal of the ACM 32(3), 733–749 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sokolsky, O., Viswanathan, M.: Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV 2003). ENTCS, vol. 89. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thati, P., Roşu, G.: Monitoring Algorithms for Metric Temporal Logic. In: Proceedings of RV 2004. ENTCS, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolper, P.: Constructing Automata from Temporal Logic Formulas: a Tutorial. In: Brinksma, E., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P. (eds.) EEF School 2000 and FMPA 2000. LNCS, vol. 2090, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo d’Amorim
    • 1
  • Grigore Roşu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations