Advertisement

COST Action IC1402 Runtime Verification Beyond Monitoring

  • Christian ColomboEmail author
  • Yliès Falcone
  • Martin Leucker
  • Giles Reger
  • Cesar Sanchez
  • Gerardo Schneider
  • Volker Stolz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11237)

Abstract

In this paper we report on COST Action IC1402 which studies Runtime Verification approaches beyond Monitoring. COST Actions are funded by the European Union and are an efficient networking instrument for researchers, engineers and scholars to cooperate and coordinate research activities. This COST action IC1402 lasted over the past four years, involved researchers from 27 different European countries and Australia and allowed to have many different working group meetings, workshops and individual visits.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartocci, E., Bonakdarpour, B., Falcone, Y.: First international competition on software for runtime verification. In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 1–9. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartocci, E., Deshmukh, J., Donzé, A., Fainekos, G.E, Maler, O., Ničković, D., Sankaranarayanan, S.: Specification-based monitoring of cyber-physical systems: a survey on theory, tools and applications. In: Bartocci and Falcone [5], pp. 135–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y.: RV-TheToP: runtime verification from theory to the industry practice (track introduction). In: Margaria T., Steffen B. (eds.) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Discussion, Dissemination, Applications - 8th International Symposium, ISoLA 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, 30 October–13 November 2018 Proceedings, Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2018, to appear)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y.: Runtime verification and enforcement, the (industrial) application perspective (track introduction). In: Margaria and Steffen [30], pp. 333–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.): Lectures on Runtime Verification - Introductory and Advanced Topics. LNCS, vol. 10457. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartocci, E., et al.: First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Francalanza, A., Reger, G.: Introduction to runtime verification. In: Bartocci and Falcone [5], pp. 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.): RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R.: Introduction to the special issue on runtime verification. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 51(1), 1–4 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-017-0287-6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bianculli, D., Krstic, S.: On the risk of tool over-tuning in run-time verification competitions (position paper). In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 37–40. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/N6cC
  11. 11.
    Colin, S., Mariani, L.: 18: Run-Time Verification. In: Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.-P., Leucker, M., Pretschner, A. (eds.) Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems. LNCS, vol. 3472, pp. 525–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11498490_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colombo, C., Falcone, Y.: First international summer school on runtime verification - as part of the ArVi COST action 1402. In: Falcone and Sánchez [19], pp. 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colombo, C., Falcone, Y.: Second school on runtime verification. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) Runtime Verification - 18th International Conference, RV 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, 11–13 November, 2018, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11237, pp. 27–32. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: Industrial experiences with runtime verification of financial transaction systems: lessons learnt and standing challenges. In: Bartocci and Falcone [5], pp. 211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G.: A tutorial on runtime verification. In: Broy, M., Peled, D.A., Kalus, G. (eds.) Engineering Dependable Software Systems, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, D: Information and Communication Security, vol. 34, pp. 141–175. IOS Press (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-207-3-141
  16. 16.
    Falcone, Y., Kristc, S., Reger, G., Traytel, D.: A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Runtime Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11237, pp. 241–262. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falcone, Y., Mariani, L., Rollet, A., Saha, S.: Runtime failure prevention and reaction. In: Bartocci and Falcone [5], pp. 103–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falcone, Y., Nickovic, D., Reger, G., Thoma, D.: Second international competition on runtime verification CRV 2015. In: Bartocci and Majumdar [8], pp. 405–422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.): RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C.: Introduction to the special issue on runtime verification. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 53(1), 1–5 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-018-0320-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hallé, S., Khoury, R., Gaboury, S.: A few things we heard about RV tools (position paper). In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 89–95. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/q246
  22. 22.
    Havelund, K., Goldberg, A.: Verify your runs. In: Meyer, B., Woodcock, J. (eds.) VSTTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4171, pp. 374–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69149-5_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Havelund, K., Leucker, M., Reger, G., Stolz, V.: A shared challenge in behavioural specification (Dagstuhl seminar 17462). Dagstuhl Rep. 7(11), 59–85 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.7.11.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Havelund, K., Reger, G.: Runtime verification logics a language design perspective. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 310–338. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Havelund, K., Reger, G., Thoma, D., Zalinescu, E.: Monitoring events that carry data. In: Bartocci and Falcone [5], pp. 61–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jakšić, S., Leucker, M., Li, D., Stolz, V.: COEMS - open traces from the industry. In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 96–105. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/QljX
  27. 27.
    Lahiri, S., Reger, G. (eds.): RV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10548. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67531-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 78(5), 293–303 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2008.08.004CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mallozzi, P., Pardo, R., Duplessis, V., Pelliccione, P., Schneider, G.: MoVEMo: a structured approach for engineering reward functions. In: Second IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC 2018), pp. 250–257. IEEE Computer Society (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/IRC.2018.00053
  30. 30.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.): ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reger, G.: A report of RV-CuBES 2017. In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 1–9. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/MVXk
  32. 32.
    Reger, G., Hallé, S., Falcone, Y.: Third international competition on runtime verification - CRV 2016. In: Falcone and Sánchez [19], pp. 21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reger, G., Havelund, K.: What is a trace? A runtime verification perspective. In: Margaria and Steffen [30], pp. 339–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reger, G., Havelund, K. (eds.): RV-CuBES 2017. In: An International Workshop on Competitions, Usability, Benchmarks, Evaluation, and Standardisation for Runtime Verification Tools, Kalpa Publications in Computing, vol. 3. EasyChair (2017)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: From parametric trace slicing to rule systems. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Runtime Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11237, pp. 334–352. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.E.: From first-order temporal logic to parametric trace slicing. In: Bartocci and Majumdar [8], pp. 216–232  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rozier, K.Y.: On the evaluation and comparison of runtime verification tools for hardware and cyber-physical systems. In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 123–137. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/877G
  38. 38.
    Sánchez, C., et al.: A Survey of Challenges for Runtime Verification from Advanced Application Domains (beyond software) (2018, under submission)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Signoles, J.: Online runtime verification competitions: how to possibly deal with their issues (position paper). In: Reger and Havelund [34], pp. 157–163. https://easychair.org/publications/paper/m1vV

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Colombo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yliès Falcone
    • 2
  • Martin Leucker
    • 3
  • Giles Reger
    • 4
  • Cesar Sanchez
    • 5
  • Gerardo Schneider
    • 6
  • Volker Stolz
    • 7
  1. 1.University of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, Grenoble INP, LIGGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Universtität zu LübeckLübeckGermany
  4. 4.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  5. 5.IMDEA Software InstituteMadridSpain
  6. 6.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  7. 7.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations