Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Runtime Verification Logics A Language Design Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10460))

Abstract

Runtime Verification is a light-weight approach to systems verification, where actual executions of a system are processed and analyzed using rigorous techniques. In this paper we shall narrow the term’s definition to represent the commonly studied variant consisting of verifying that a single system execution conforms to a specification written in a formal specification language. Runtime verification (in this sense) can be used for writing test oracles during testing when the system is too complex for full formal verification, or it can be used during deployment of the system as part of a fault protection strategy, where corrective actions may be taken in case the specification is violated. Specification languages for runtime verification appear to differ from for example temporal logics applied in model checking, in part due to the focus on monitoring of events that carry data, and specifically due to the desire to relate data values existing at different time points, resulting in new challenges in both the complexity of the monitoring approach and the expressiveness of languages. Over the recent years, numerous runtime verification specification languages have emerged, each with its different features and levels of expressiveness and usability. This paper presents an overview and a discussion of this design space.

K. Havelund—The research performed by this author was carried out at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

G. Reger—The work of this author is related to COST Action ARVI IC1402, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

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.

    RV more broadly includes such topics as checking traces with algorithms, learning specifications including statistical information from traces, trace visualization, program instrumentation, and fault protection.

  2. 2.

    Here \(\varLambda m,c,i\) is related to trace-slicing (see Sect. 4.4) and has the meaning that the property should hold for all subtraces projected on possible values for m, c, i.

  3. 3.

    A language is extension closed if whenever \(\tau \) is in the language then so is \(\tau .\sigma \) for any \(\sigma \).

  4. 4.

    As before, the focus is not on the data part. Here we use the same operators as before, which are like universal and existential quantification for the positive and negative formulations respectively. The way we add parameters to state machines is covered extensively in Sect. 4.

  5. 5.

    We note that this graphical presentation has been reversed compared to some previous work [3, 55]. We have chosen this presentation here as a next semantics is more typical for state machines as is a circle being used to represent a state, and states in state charts, which usually have skip semantics, normally are drawn as boxes, although typically with rounded corners.

  6. 6.

    CTL (Computation Tree Logic) [21] is a logic on execution path trees, and has therefore not been popular in runtime verification. However, one can imagine a CTL-like logic being used for analyzing a set of traces, merged into a tree.

References

  1. XTL Manual. http://cadp.inria.fr/man/xtl.html

  2. Allan, C., Avgustinov, P., Christensen, A.S., Hendren, L., Kuzins, S., Lhoták, O., de Moor, O., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., Tibble, J.: Adding trace matching with free variables to AspectJ. SIGPLAN Not. 40, 345–364 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-based runtime verification. In: Steffen, B., Levi, G. (eds.) VMCAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24622-0_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Barringer, H., Havelund, K.: TraceContract: a scala DSL for trace analysis. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 57–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21437-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Barringer, H., Rydeheard, D., Havelund, K.: Rule systems for run-time monitoring: from Eagle to RuleR. J. Log. Comput. 20(3), 675–706 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartetzko, D., Fischer, C., Möller, M., Wehrheim, H.: Jass - Java with assertions. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV 2001), Paris, France, ENTCS, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 103–117. Elsevier, July 2001. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.92.144&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  8. Bartocci, E., Bonakdarpour, B., Falcone, Y.: First international competition on software for runtime verification. In: Proceedings of the Runtime Verification - 5th International Conference, RV 2014, Toronto, ON, Canada, 22–25 September 2014, pp. 1–9 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Bonakdarpour, B., Colombo, C., Decker, N., Havelund, K., Joshi, Y., Klaedtke, F., Milewicz, R., Reger, G., Rosu, G., Signoles, J., Thoma, D., Zalinescu, E., Zhang, Y.: First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 1–40 (2017). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10009-017-0454-5

  10. Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Marinovic, S., Zălinescu, E.: Monitoring of temporal first-order properties with aggregations. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 46, 262–285 (2015)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Müller, S., Pfitzmann, B.: Runtime monitoring of metric first-order temporal properties. In: Proceedings of the 28th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 2, pp. 49–60. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz Center for Informatics (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bauer, A., Goré, R., Tiu, A.: A first-order policy language for history-based transaction monitoring. In: Leucker, M., Morgan, C. (eds.) ICTAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5684, pp. 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03466-4_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bauer, A., Küster, J., Vegliach, G.: The ins and outs of first-order runtime verification. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 46(3), 286–316 (2015)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: The good, the bad, and the ugly, but how ugly is ugly? In: Sokolsky, O., Taşıran, S. (eds.) RV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4839, pp. 126–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77395-5_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bensalem, S., Havelund, K.: Dynamic deadlock analysis of multi-threaded programs. In: Ur, S., Bin, E., Wolfsthal, Y. (eds.) HVC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3875, pp. 208–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11678779_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C., San Pietro, P.: The tale of SOLOIST: a specification language for service compositions interactions. In: Păsăreanu, C.S., Salaün, G. (eds.) FACS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7684, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35861-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen, F., Roşu, G.: MOP: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2007), pp. 569–588. ACM Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng, K.T., Krishnakumar, A.S.: Automatic functional test generation using the extended finite state machine model. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Design Automation Conference, DAC 1993, pp. 86–91. ACM, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chomicki, J., Toman, D., Böhlen, M.H.: Querying ATSQL databases with temporal logic. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 26(2), 145–178 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: LARVA – safer monitoring of real-time Java programs (tool paper). In: Proceedings of the 2009 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM 2009, pp. 33–37. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. D’Angelo, B., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sánchez, C., Robinson, W., Finkbeiner, B., Sipma, H.B., Mehrotra, S., Manna, Z.: LOLA: runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, pp. 166–174. IEEE Computer Society (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Decker, N., Leucker, M., Thoma, D.: Monitoring modulo theories. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 18, 1–21 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Demri, S., Lazić, R.: LTL with the freeze quantifier and register automata. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 10(3), 16:1–16:30 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Drusinsky, D.: Modeling and Verification using UML Statecharts, 400 p. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006). ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-7949-7

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eisner, C., Fisman, D.: Temporal logic made practical. In: Handbook of Model Checking (2014, to appear). http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~fisman/publications.html

  29. Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.-C., Mounier, L.: Runtime verification of safety-progress properties. In: Bensalem, S., Peled, D.A. (eds.) RV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5779, pp. 40–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04694-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G.: A tutorial on runtime verification. Eng. Dependable Softw. Syst. 34, 141–175 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Finkbeiner, B., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sipma, H.: Collecting statistics over runtime executions. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 27(3), 253–274 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18, 194–211 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Grigore, R., Distefano, D., Petersen, R.L., Tzevelekos, N.: Runtime verification based on register automata. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 260–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Hallé, S., Villemaire, R.: Runtime enforcement of web service message contracts with data. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 5(2), 192–206 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Havelund, K.: Rule-based runtime verification revisited. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 17(2), 143–170 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Efficient monitoring of safety properties. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 6(2), 158–173 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Holzmann, G.: The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kaminski, M., Francez, N.: Finite-memory automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 134(2), 329–363 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Kiczales, G., Hilsdale, E., Hugunin, J., Kersten, M., Palm, J., Griswold, W.G.: An overview of AspectJ. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 327–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-45337-7_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim, M., Viswanathan, M., Kannan, S., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Java-MaC: a run-time assurance approach for Java programs. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 24(2), 129–155 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 27(3), 333–354 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Laroussinie, F., Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Temporal logic with forgettable past. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2002, pp. 383–392. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Larsen, K.G., Legay, A.: Statistical model checking: past, present, and future. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 3–15. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Legay, A., Delahaye, B., Bensalem, S.: Statistical model checking: an overview. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 78(5), 293–303 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, New York Inc. (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Medhat, R., Bonakdarpour, B., Fischmeister, S., Joshi, Y.: Accelerated runtime verification of LTL specifications with counting semantics. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 251–267. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Meredith, P.O., Jin, D., Griffith, D., Chen, F., Roşu, G.: An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14, 1–41 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  52. OMG. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1, August 2011

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Reger, G.: Automata based monitoring and mining of execution traces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Reger, G., Cruz, H.C., Rydeheard, D.: MarQ: monitoring at runtime with QEA. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2015) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reger, G., Hallé, S., Falcone, Y.: Third international competition on runtime verification CRV 2016. In: Proceedings of the Runtime Verification - 16th International Conference, RV 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: From first-order temporal logic to parametric trace slicing. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 216–232. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Sipser, M.: Introduction to the Theory of Computation, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning, Boston (2013)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Stolz, V., Bodden, E.: Temporal assertions using AspectJ. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV 2005), ENTCS, vol. 144, no. 4, pp. 109–124. Elsevier (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Strom, R.E., Yemini, S.: Typestate: a programming language concept for enhancing software reliability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(1), 157–171 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Vardi, M.Y.: From church and prior to PSL. In: Grumberg, O., Veith, H. (eds.) 25 Years of Model Checking. LNCS, vol. 5000, pp. 150–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69850-0_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

    Klaus Havelund

  2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Giles Reger

Authors
  1. Klaus Havelund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giles Reger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Havelund .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Luca Aceto

  2. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Giorgio Bacci

  3. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Giovanni Bacci

  4. Reykjavík University, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Anna Ingólfsdóttir

  5. Inria Campus Beaulieu, Rennes, France

    Axel Legay

  6. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Radu Mardare

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Havelund, K., Reger, G. (2017). Runtime Verification Logics A Language Design Perspective. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R. (eds) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10460. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63120-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63121-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation