Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Operational Guide to Monitorability

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11724))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Monitorability underpins the technique of Runtime Verification because it delineates what properties can be verified at runtime. Although many monitorability definitions exist, few are defined explicitly in terms of the operational guarantees provided by monitors, i.e., the computational entities carrying out the verification. We view monitorability as a spectrum, where the fewer guarantees that are required of monitors, the more properties become monitorable. Accordingly, we present a monitorability hierarchy based on this trade-off. For regular specifications, we give syntactic characterisations in Hennessy–Milner logic with recursion for its levels. Finally, we map existing monitorability definitions into our hierarchy. Hence our work gives a unified framework that makes the operational assumptions and guarantees of each definition explicit. This provides a rigorous foundation that can inform design choices and correctness claims for runtime verification tools.

This research was supported by the Icelandic Research Fund projects “TheoFoMon: Theoretical Foundations for Monitorability” (№:163406-051) and “Epistemic Logic for Distributed Runtime Monitoring” (№:184940-051), by the BMBF project “Aramis II” (№:01IS160253), the EPSRC project “Solving parity games in theory and practice” (№:EP/P020909/1), and project BehAPI, funded by the EU H2020 RISE programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement №:778233.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In RV, it is commonplace to see the expected monitor behaviour described via an intermediary n-valued logic semantics [13, 14, 32] (e.g., mapping finite traces into the three verdicts called accepting, rejecting and inconclusive). Although convenient in certain cases, the approach goes against our tenet for the separation of concerns.

  2. 2.

    In the infinite domain more properties are completely monitorable, see Sect. 8.

  3. 3.

    These are not related to the informative prefixes from [35] or to persistence from [43].

References

  1. Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: Monitoring for silent actions. In: Lokam, S., Ramanujam, R. (eds.) FSTTCS. LIPIcs, vol. 93, pp. 7:1–7:14. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: A framework for parameterized monitorability. In: Baier, C., Dal Lago, U. (eds.) FoSSaCS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10803, pp. 203–220. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89366-2_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lehtinen, K.: Adventures in monitorability: from branching to linear time and back again. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3(POPL), 52:1–52:29 (2019). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3290365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lehtinen, K.: An operational guide to monitorability. CoRR abs/1906.00766 (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00766

  5. Aceto, L., Cassar, I., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: On runtime enforcement via suppressions. In: 29th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2018. LIPIcs, vol. 118, pp. 34:1–34:17. Schloss Dagstuhl (2018). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2018.34

  6. Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Larsen, K.G., Srba, J.: Reactive Systems: Modelling, Specification and Verification. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Inf. Process. Lett. 21(4), 181–185 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Attard, D.P., Cassar, I., Francalanza, A., Aceto, L., Ingolfsdottir, A.: A runtime monitoring tool for actor-based systems. In: Gay, S., Ravara, A. (eds.) Behavioural Types: From Theory to Tools, pp. 49–74. River Publishers (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Attard, D.P., Francalanza, A.: A monitoring tool for a branching-time logic. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 473–481. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.): Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 21st International Conference, TACAS 2015, LNCS, vol. 9035. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Barringer, H., Rydeheard, D., Havelund, K.: Rule systems for run-time monitoring: from Eagle to RuleR. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 675–706 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Francalanza, A., Reger, G.: Introduction to runtime verification. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 1–33. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 651–674 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 14:1–14:64 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2000799.2000800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bérard, B., et al.: Systems and Software Verification: Model-checking Techniques and Tools. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04558-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang, E., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Characterization of temporal property classes. In: Kuich, W. (ed.) ICALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 474–486. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55719-9_97

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, F., Rosu, G.: Mop: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: Gabriel, R.P., Bacon, D.F., Lopes, C.V., Steele Jr., G.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA 2007, pp. 569–588. ACM (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1297027.1297069

  18. Chen, Z., Wu, Y., Wei, O., Sheng, B.: Poster: deciding weak monitorability for runtime verification. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion (ICSE-Companion), pp. 163–164, May 2018

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cini, C., Francalanza, A.: An LTL proof system for runtime verification. In: Baier and Tinelli [10], pp. 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Convent, L., Hungerecker, S., Leucker, M., Scheffel, T., Schmitz, M., Thoma, D.: TeSSLa: temporal stream-based specification language. In: Massoni, T., Mousavi, M.R. (eds.) SBMF 2018. LNCS, vol. 11254, pp. 144–162. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03044-5_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Angelo, B., et al.: LOLA: runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In: 12th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2005), pp. 166–174. IEEE Computer Society Press, June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  23. Decker, N., Leucker, M., Thoma, D.: jUnitRV–adding runtime verification to jUnit. In: Brat, G., Rungta, N., Venet, A. (eds.) NFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7871, pp. 459–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Diekert, V., Leucker, M.: Topology, monitorable properties and runtime verification. Theor. Comput. Sci. 537, 29–41 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.02.052

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: What can you verify and enforce at runtime? Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(3), 349–382 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferrère, T., Henzinger, T.A., Saraç, N.E.: A theory of register monitors. In: Dawar, A., Grädel, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2018, pp. 394–403. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209194

  27. Francalanza, A.: A theory of monitors (extended abstract). In: Jacobs, B., Löding, C. (eds.) FoSSaCS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9634, pp. 145–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49630-5_9

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Francalanza, A.: Consistently-detecting monitors. In: 28th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR). LIPIcs, vol. 85, pp. 8:1–8:19. Schloss Dagstuhl (2017). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2017.8

  29. Francalanza, A., et al.: A foundation for runtime monitoring. In: Lahiri, S., Reger, G. (eds.) RV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10548, pp. 8–29. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67531-2_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Francalanza, A., Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: Monitorability for the Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 51(1), 87–116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-017-0273-z

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Francalanza, A., Seychell, A.: Synthesising correct concurrent runtime monitors. Form. Methods Syst. Des. (FMSD) 46(3), 226–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-014-0217-9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Havelund, K., Peled, D.: Runtime verification: from propositional to first-order temporal logic. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) RV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11237, pp. 90–112. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03769-7_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. J. ACM 32(1), 137–161 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1145/2455.2460

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Kozen, D.C.: Results on the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(3), 291–314 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J. ACM 47(2), 312–360 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Larsen, K.G.: Proof systems for satisfiability in Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. Theor. Comput. Sci. 72(2), 265–288 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(90)90038-J

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Laurent, J., Goodloe, A., Pike, L.: Assuring the guardians. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 87–101. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Completing the temporal picture. Theor. Comput. Sci. 83(1), 97–130 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90041-Y

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Neykova, R., Bocchi, L., Yoshida, N.: Timed runtime monitoring for multiparty conversations. Form. Asp. Comput. 29(5), 877–910 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-017-0420-8

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/11813040_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Reger, G., Cruz, H.C., Rydeheard, D.E.: MarQ: monitoring at runtime withQEA. In: Baier and Tinelli [10], pp. 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosu, G.: On safety properties and their monitoring. Sci. Ann. Comput. Sci. 22(2), 327–365 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3(1), 30–50 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Viswanathan, M., Kim, M.: Foundations for the run-time monitoring of reactive systems – Fundamentals of the MaC Language. In: Liu, Z., Araki, K. (eds.) ICTAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3407, pp. 543–556. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31862-0_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Wolper, P.: Temporal logic can be more expressive. Inf. Control 56(1/2), 72–99 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(83)80051-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila, Italy

    Luca Aceto

  2. Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Luca Aceto, Antonis Achilleos & Anna Ingólfsdóttir

  3. University of Malta, Msida, Malta

    Adrian Francalanza

  4. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Karoliina Lehtinen

Authors
  1. Luca Aceto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonis Achilleos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adrian Francalanza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Ingólfsdóttir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karoliina Lehtinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Luca Aceto , Antonis Achilleos , Adrian Francalanza , Anna Ingólfsdóttir or Karoliina Lehtinen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Peter Csaba Ölveczky

  2. University of Grenoble Alpes, Montbonnot, France

    Gwen Salaün

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lehtinen, K. (2019). An Operational Guide to Monitorability. In: Ölveczky, P., Salaün, G. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11724. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30445-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30446-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation