Runtime Verification and Enforcement, the (Industrial) Application Perspective (Track Introduction)

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9953)


During the last decade, the runtime verification and enforcement (RVE) community has been incredibly prolific in producing many theories, tools and techniques aiming towards the efficient analysis of systems’ executions and guaranteeing their correctness w.r.t. some desired properties. With the major strides made in recent years, much effort is still needed to make RVE attractive and viable methodologies for industrial use. In addition to industry, numerous other domains, such as security, bio-health monitoring, etc., can gain from RVE. The purpose of the “ Runtime Verification and Enforcement: the (industrial) application perspective” track at ISoLA’16 is to bring together RVE experts and potential application domains to try and advance the state-of-the-art on how to make RVE more useable and attractive to industry and other disciplines.


Runtime Verification (RV) Application Perspective Introduction Tracking Potential Application Domains Viable Methodology 
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.



The authors acknowledge the support of the ICT COST Action IC1402 Runtime Verification beyond Monitoring (ARVI). Ezio Bartocci acknowledges also the partial support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the IKT der Zukunft of Austrian FFG project HARMONIA (nr. 845631).


  1. 1.
    Bartocci, E., Bortolussi, L., Nenzi, L.: A temporal logic approach to modular design of synthetic biological circuits. In: Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CMSB 2013. LNCS, vol. 8130, pp. 164–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40708-6_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_1 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartocci, E., Bortolussi, L., Nenzi, L., Sanguinetti, G.: System design of stochastic models using robustness of temporal properties. Theor. Comput. Sci. 587, 3–25 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartocci, E., Bortolussi, L., Sanguinetti, G.: Data-driven statistical learning of temporal logic properties. In: Legay, A., Bozga, M. (eds.) FORMATS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8711, pp. 23–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10512-3_3 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartocci, E., Liò, P.: Computational modeling, formal analysis, and tools for systems biology. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12(1) (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Rajsbaum, S., Fraigniaud, P., Travers, C.: Challenges in fault-tolerant distributed runtime verification. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 363–370. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bufo, S., Bartocci, E., Sanguinetti, G., Borelli, M., Lucangelo, U., Bortolussi, L.: Temporal logic based monitoring of assisted ventilation in intensive care patients. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 391–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45231-8_30 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). doi: 10.1007/BFb0025774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G., Camilleri, L., Dimech, C.F.R., Grech, J.P., Magro, A., Sammut, A.C., Adami, K.Z.: Runtime verification for stream processing applications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 400–406. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donzé, A., Maler, O., Bartocci, E., Nickovic, D., Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: On temporal logic and signal processing. In: Chakraborty, S., Mukund, M. (eds.) ATVA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7561, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J., Mounier, L.: What can you verify and enforce at runtime? STTT 14(3), 349–382 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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: Information and Communication Security, vol. 34, pp. 141–175. IOS Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falcone, Y., Jéron, T., Marchand, H., Pinisetty, S.: Runtime enforcement of regular timed properties by suppressing and delaying events. Syst. Control Lett. 123, 2–41 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falcone, Y., Marchand, H.: Enforcement and validation (at runtime) of various notions of opacity. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 25(4), 531–570 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcone, Y., Mounier, L., Fernandez, J., Richier, J.: Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 38(3), 223–262 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falcone, Y., Ničković, D., Reger, G., Thoma, D.: Second international competition on runtime verification. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 405–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gol, E.A., Bartocci, E., Belta, C.: A formal methods approach to pattern synthesis in reaction diffusion systems. In: Proceedings of 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2014, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 15–17 December 2014, pp. 108–113. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, P., Pardo, R., Schneider, G.: On the runtime enforcement of evolving privacy policies in online social networks. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 407–412. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haghighi, I., Jones, A., Kong, Z., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Belta, C.: Spatel: a novel spatial-temporal logic and its applications to networked systems. In: Proceedings of HSCC 2015: The 18th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pp. 189–198. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaksic, S., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Kloibhofer, R., Nguyen, T., Ničković, D.: From signal temporal logic to FPGA monitors. In: Proceedings of MEMOCODE 2015: The ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign, pp. 218–227. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaksic, S., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Ničković, D.: Quantitative monitoring of STL with edit distance. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 201–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joshi, R., Kauffman, S., Havelund, K.: Towards a logic for inferring properties of event streams. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 394–399. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khoury, R., Hallé, S., Waldmann, O.: Execution trace analysis using LTL-FO+. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 356–362. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., Zickur, K.: Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leucker, M., Schmitz, M., Tellinghusen, D.A.: Runtime verification for interconnected medical devices. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 380–387. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mariani, L., Pastore, F.: Dynamic analysis of regression problems in industrial systems: challenges and solutions. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 388–393. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nguyen, T., Bartocci, E., Ničković, D., Grosu, R., Jaksic, S., Selyunin, K.: The HARMONIA project: hardware monitoring for automotive systems-of-systems. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 371–379. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinisetty, S., Falcone, Y., Jéron, T., Marchand, H., Rollet, A., Nguena-Timo, O.: Runtime enforcement of timed properties revisited. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 45(3), 381–422 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 573–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11813040_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982). doi: 10.1007/3-540-11494-7_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reger, G., Havelund, K.: What is a trace? A runtime verification perspective. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 339–355. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Renard, M., Falcone, Y., Rollet, A., Pinisetty, S., Jéron, T., Marchand, H.: Enforcement of (Timed) properties with uncontrollable events. In: Leucker, M., Rueda, C., Valencia, F.D. (eds.) ICTAC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9399, pp. 542–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25150-9_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3(1), 30–50 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider, G.: On the specification and enforcement of privacy-preserving contractual agreements. In: Steffen, B., Margaria, T. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 413–419. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Selyunin, K., Nguyen, T., Bartocci, E., Ničković, D., Grosu, R.: Monitoring of MTL specifications with IBM’s spiking-neuron model. In: Proceedings of DATE 2016: The 19th Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, pp. 924–929. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Inria, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations