Increasing Dependability by Means of Model-Based Acceptance Test inside RTOS

  • Yuhong Zhao
  • Simon Oberthür
  • Norma Montealegre
  • Franz J. Rammig
  • Martin Kardos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3911)


Component-based self-optimizing systems can adjust themselves over time to dynamic environments by means of exchanging components. In case that such systems are safety-critical, the dependability issue becomes paramountly significant. This paper presents a novel model-based runtime verification to increase dependability for the self-optimizing systems of this kind. The proposed verification approach plays a role of an alternative acceptance test transparently integrated in RTOS, named model-based acceptance test. The verification is performed at the level of (RT-UML) models representing the systems under consideration. The properties to be checked are expressed by RT-OCL where the underlying temporal logic is restricted to either time-annotated ACTL or LTL formulae. The applied technique is based on the on-the-fly model checking, which runs interleaved with the execution of the checked system in a pipelined manner. More specifically, for ACTL formulae this means an on-the-fly solution to the NHORNSAT problem, while in the case of LTL formulae, the emptiness checking method is applied.


Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Acceptance Test Kripke Structure Computation Tree Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kopetz, H.: Real Time Systems, design principles for distributed embedded applications (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maehle, E., Markus, F.J.: Fault tolerant dynamic task scheduling based on dataflow diagram. In: International Paralell and Distributed Processing Symposium (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buttazzo, G.: Hard Real-Time Computing Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett, M., Schulte, W.: Spying on components: A runtime verification technique. In: Leavens, G.T., Sitaraman, M., Giannakopoulou, D. (eds.) Workshop on Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, F., Rosu, G.: Towards Monitoring-Oriented Programming: A Paradigm Combining Specification and Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV 2003), Boulder, Colorado, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Havelund, K., Rosu, G.: Java PathExplorer — a runtime verification tool. In: Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (ISAIRAS 2001), Montreal, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giese, H., Tichy, M., Burmester, S., Schäfer, W., Flake, S.: Towards the Compositional Verification of Real-time UML Designs. In: Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), Helsinki, Finland (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giese, H., Burmester, S.: Real-time Statechart Semantics. Technical Report tr-ri- 03-239, Computer Science Department, Paderborn University (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flake, S., Mueller, W.: An OCL Extension for Real-Time Constraints. In: Clark, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Object Modeling with the OCL. LNCS, vol. 2263, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gurevich, Y., Schulte, W., Campbell, C., Grieskamp, W.: AsmL: The Abstract State Machine Language Version 2.0,
  11. 11.
    Emerson, E.A., Mok, A.K., Sistla, A.P., Srinivasan, J.: Quantitative temporal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, London, UK, pp. 136–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shukla, S., Rosenkrantz, D.J., Hunt III, H.B., Stearns, R.E.: A HORNSAT Based Approach to the Polynomial Time Decidability of Simulation Relations for Finite State Processes. In: DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, American Mathematical Society, vol. 35 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ausiello, G., Italiano, G.F.: On-line algorithms for polynomially solvable satisfiability problems. J. Log. Program 10(1), 69–90 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Courcoubetis, C., Vardi, M., Wolper, P., Yannakakis, M.: Memory-efficient algorithms for the verification of temporal properties. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 1(2-3), 275–288 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao, Y., Oberthür, S., Kardos, M., Rammig, F.J.: Model-based runtime verification framework for self-optimizing systems. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV 2005), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuhong Zhao
    • 1
  • Simon Oberthür
    • 1
  • Norma Montealegre
    • 1
  • Franz J. Rammig
    • 1
  • Martin Kardos
    • 1
  1. 1.Heinz Nixdorf InstituteUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations