Quantitative Monitoring of STL with Edit Distance
In cyber-physical systems (CPS), physical behaviors are typically controlled by digital hardware. As a consequence, continuous behaviors are discretized by sampling and quantization prior to their processing. Quantifying the similarity between CPS behaviors and their specification is an important ingredient in evaluating correctness and quality of such systems. We propose a novel procedure for measuring robustness between digitized CPS signals and Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications. We first equip STL with quantitative semantics based on the weighted edit distance (WED), a metric that quantifies both space and time mismatches between digitized CPS behaviors. We then develop a dynamic programming algorithm for computing the robustness degree between digitized signals and STL specifications. We implemented our approach and evaluated it on an automotive case study.
KeywordsField Programmable Gate Array Edit Distance Quantization Step Discrete Signal Continuous Behavior
We would like to thank Oded Maler, Mario Klima and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on the earlier drafts of the paper.
We acknowledge the support of the IKT der Zukunft of Austrian FFG project HARMONIA (nr. 845631), the ICT COST Action IC1402 Runtime Verification beyond Monitoring (ARVI), the Austrian National Research Network S 11405-N23 and S 11412-N23 (RiSE/SHiNE) of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the Doctoral Program Logical Methods in Computer Science of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF).
- 2.Allauzen, C., Mohri, M.: Linear-space computation of the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton. CoRR abs/0904.4686 (2009)Google Scholar
- 4.Abbas, H., Hoxha, B., Fainekos, G.: Benchmarks for temporal logic requirements for automotive systems. In: Proceedings of Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems (2014)Google Scholar
- 8.Deshmukh, J.V., Majumdar, R., Prabhu, V.S.: Quantifying conformance using the Skorokhod metric (full version). CoRR abs/1505.05832 (2015)Google Scholar
- 13.Fainekos, G.E., Sankaranarayanan, S., Ivancic, F., Gupta, A.: Robustness of model-based simulations. In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, RTSS 2009, Washington, DC, USA, 1–4 December 2009, pp. 345–354 (2009)Google Scholar
- 14.Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In: Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV, Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFIP WG6.1 International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 3–18 (1995)Google Scholar
- 16.Krause, E.F.: Taxicab Geometry: An Adventure in Non-Euclidean Geometry. Courier Corporation, North Chelmsford (2012)Google Scholar
- 22.Rizk, A., Batt, G., Fages, F., Soliman, S.: On a continuous degree of satisfaction of temporal logic formulae with applications to systems biology. In: Heiner, M., Uhrmacher, A.M. (eds.) CMSB 2008. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 5307, pp. 251–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88562-7_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar