Advertisement

Rule Systems for Run-Time Monitoring: From Eagle to RuleR

  • Howard Barringer
  • David Rydeheard
  • Klaus Havelund
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4839)

Abstract

In [3], Eagle was introduced as a general purpose rule-based temporal logic for specifying run-time monitors. A novel and relatively efficient interpretative trace-checking scheme via stepwise transformation of an Eagle monitoring formula was defined and implemented. However, application in real-world examples has shown efficiency weaknesses, especially those associated with large-scale symbolic formula manipulation. In this paper, after briefly reviewing Eagle, we introduce RuleR, a primitive conditional rule-based system, which we claim can be more efficiently implemented for run-time checking, and into which one can compile various temporal logics used for run-time verification.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Observation State Rule Activation Rule System Temporal Formula 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barringer, H., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., Owens, R., Reynolds, M.: The Imperative Future: Principles of Executable Temporal Logic. Research Studies Press (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barringer, H., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., Gough, G., Owens, R.: An Introduction. In: Formal Aspects of Computing, vol. 7(5), pp. 533–549. Springer, London (1995)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, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Run-time Monitoring in Eagle. In: Brunnstein, K., Händler, W., Haefner, K. (eds.) RGU 1974. LNCS, vol. 17, p. 264. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barringer, H., Rydeheard, D., Gabbay, D.: Reactive Grammars: An Initial Exploration, Draft paper(2007), see http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~david/reactive.html
  6. 6.
    Fisher, M.D.: A Normal Form for Temporal Logics and its Applications in Theorem-Proving and Execution. Journal of Logic and Computation 7(4), 429–456 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finkbeiner, B., Sipma, H.: Checking Finite Traces Using Alternating Automata. Formal Methods in System Design 24(2), 101–127 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Declarative Past and Imperative Future: Executable Temporal Logic for Interactive Systems. In: Banieqbal, B., Pnueli, A., Barringer, H. (eds.) Temporal Logic in Specification. LNCS, vol. 398, pp. 67–89. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Introducing Reactive Kripke Semantics and Arc Accessibility. In: Gabbay, D.M. (ed.) To appear in Festschrift in Honour of Boaz Traktenbrot (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moriya, E., Hofbauer, D., Huber, M., Otto, F.: On State-Alternating Context-Free Grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 337(11), 183–216 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Barringer
    • 1
  • David Rydeheard
    • 1
  • Klaus Havelund
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PLUK
  2. 2.NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109USA

Personalised recommendations