Runtime Verification of Component-Based Systems

  • Yliès Falcone
  • Mohamad Jaber
  • Thanh-Hung Nguyen
  • Marius Bozga
  • Saddek Bensalem
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7041)


Verification of component-based systems still suffers from limitations such as state space explosion since a large number of different components may interact in an heterogeneous environment. Those limitations entail the need for complementary verification methods such as runtime verification based on dynamic analysis and prone to scalability. In this paper, we integrate runtime verification into the BIP (Behavior, Interaction, and Priority) framework. BIP is a powerful component-based framework for the construction of heterogeneous systems. Our method augments BIP systems with monitors checking a user-provided specification. This method has been implemented in RV-BIP, a prototype tool that we used to validate the whole approach on a robotic application.


Label Transition System Composite Component Robotic Application Atomic Component Symbolic Model Check 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: A Notion of Glue Expressiveness for Component-Based Systems. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 508–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Runtime Verification (2001-2010),
  3. 3.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing ltl semantics for runtime verification. J. Log. Comput. 20, 651–674 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Runtime verification of safety-progress properties. In: [27], pp. 40–59Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: 4th IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2006), pp. 3–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bliudze, S., Sifakis, J.: The algebra of connectors—structuring interaction in BIP. IEEE Transactions on Computers 57, 1315–1330 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stolz, V.: Temporal assertions with parametrised propositions. In: Sokolsky, O., Taşıran, S. (eds.) RV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4839, pp. 176–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleury, S., Herrb, M., Chatila, R.: GenoM: A Tool for the Specification and the Implementation of Operating Modules in a Distributed Robot Architecture. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 1997, pp. 842–848. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bensalem, S., Gallien, M., Ingrand, F., Kahloul, I., Nguyen, T.H.: Toward a more dependable software architecture for autonomous robots. IEEE Robotics and Automaton Magazine, Special issue on Soft. Engineering for Robotics 16, 67–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Umrigar, Z.D., Pitchumani, V.: Formal verification of a real-time hardware design. In: DAC 1983: Proceedings of the 20th Design Automation Conference, pp. 221–227. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of synchronisation skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMillan, K.: Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burch, J., Clarke, E., McMillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 5th Syposium on Logic in Computer science, pp. 428–439 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19, 7–34 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke, E., Long, D., McMillan, K.: Compositional model checking. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on LICS, pp. 353–362. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang, E., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Compositional verification of real-time systems. In: Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Long, D.E.: Model Checking, Abstraction, and Compositional Reasoning. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J., Nguyen, T.H.: Compositional verification for component-based systems and application. Software Journal, Special Issue on Automated Compositional Verification 4, 181–193 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bensalem, S., Bogza, M., Legay, A., Nguyen, T.H., Sifakis, J., Yan, R.: Incremental component-based construction and verification using invariants. In: FMCAD (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. Computer 25, 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Composing specifications. ACM Transaction on Programming Languages and Systems 15, 73–132 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ben-Hafaiedh, I., Graf, S., Quinton, S.: Reasoning about safety and progress using contracts. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 436–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kähkönen, K., Lampinen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: The lime interface specification language and runtime monitoring tool. In: [27], pp. 93–100Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.J.: Clara: A framework for partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. In: [28], pp. 183–197Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Falcone, Y.: You should better enforce than verify. In: [28], pp. 89–105Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bensalem, S., Peled, D. (eds.): RV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5779. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Finkbeiner, B., Havelund, K., Lee, I., Pace, G.J., Rosu, G., Sokolsky, O., Tillmann, N. (eds.): RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yliès Falcone
    • 1
  • Mohamad Jaber
    • 2
  • Thanh-Hung Nguyen
    • 2
  • Marius Bozga
    • 2
  • Saddek Bensalem
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA, Rennes - Bretagne AtlantiqueFrance
  2. 2.VERIMAGUniversité Grenoble IFrance

Personalised recommendations