Efficient Monitoring of ω-Languages

d’Amorim, Marcelo; Roşu, Grigore

doi:10.1007/11513988_36

Cited by 86 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…D'Amorim and Roşu [14] show how to construct monitors for minimal bad prefixes of temporal properties without any restrictions regarding whether the property is a safety property or not. They construct a nondeterministic finite automaton of size 2 O(ψ) that extracts the safety content from ψ, and simulate a deterministic monitor on the fly.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many works have elaborated on that approach, c.f. [2,3,14,18,19,23]); see the discussion below of related work. Many of these works, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2], handle only safety properties, which are properties whose failure is always witnessed by a finite trace. Here, as in [14], we follow the framework of [32] in its full generality and we consider all properties whose failure may be witnessed by a finite trace. For example, the failure of the property "eventually q" can never be witnessed by a finite trace, but the failure of the property "always p and eventually q" may be witnessed by a finite trace.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimized temporal monitors for SystemC

Tabakov

Rozier

Vardi

2012

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SystemC is a modeling language built as an extension of C++. Its growing popularity and the increasing complexity of designs have motivated research efforts aimed at the verification of SystemC models using assertionbased verification (ABV), where the designer asserts properties that capture the design intent in a formal language such as PSL or SVA. The model then can be verified against the properties using runtime or formal verification techniques. In this paper we focus on automated generation of runtime monitors from temporal properties. Our focus is on minimizing runtime overhead, rather than monitor size or monitor-generation time. We identify four issues in monitor generation: state minimization, alphabet representation, alphabet minimization, and monitor encoding. We conduct extensive experimentation and identify a combination of settings that offers the best performance in terms of runtime overhead.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many works have elaborated on that approach, c.f. [2,3,14,18,19,23]); see the discussion below of related work. Many of these works, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimized temporal monitors for SystemC

Tabakov

Rozier

Vardi

2012

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The truncated-path semantics differs from the bad-prefix semantics used in several monitoring approaches (cf. [8,19,20]), where a finite-word automaton is constructed that recognizes the "bad prefixes" of the language of an infinite-word automaton, i.e., the set of prefixes that cannot be extended to accepted infinite words [1]. In the truncated-path semantics, strong specifications may be violated on a prefix even if a satisfying extension exists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitor Circuits for LTL with Bounded and Unbounded Future

Finkbeiner

Kuhtz

2009

Runtime Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Synthesizing monitor circuits for LTL formulas is expensive, because the number of flip-flops in the circuit is exponential in the length of the formula. As a result, the IEEE standard PSL recommends to restrict monitoring to the simple subset and use the full logic only for static verification. We present a novel construction for the synthesis of monitor circuits from specifications in LTL. In our construction, only subformulas with unbounded-future operators contribute to the exponential blowup. We split the specification into a bounded and an unbounded part, apply specialized constructions for each part, and then compose the results into a monitor for the original specification. Since the unbounded part in practical specifications is often very small, we argue that, with the new construction, it is no longer necessary to restrict runtime verification to the simple subset.

show abstract

“…The practical importance of this distinction lies the context of runtime verification [HR02,BGHS04,dR05]. Run-time verification of a property amounts to executing a monitor together with the system allowing the detection of errors in run time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Locally Checkable Properties

Kupferman

Lustig

Vardi

2006

Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The large computational price of formal verification of general ω-regular properties has led to the study of restricted classes of properties, and to the development of verification methodologies for them. Examples that have been widely accepted by the industry include the verification of safety properties, and bounded model checking. We introduce and study another restricted class of properties -the class of locally checkable properties. For an integer k ≥ 1, a language L ⊆ Σ ω is k-checkable if there is a language R ⊆ Σ k (of "allowed subwords") such that a word w belongs to L iff all the subwords of w of length k belong to R. A property is locally checkable if its language is k-checkable for some k. Locally checkable properties, which are a special case of safety properties, are common in the specification of systems. In particular, one can often bound an eventuality constraint in a property by a fixed time frame. The practical importance of locally checkable properties lies in the low memory demand for their run-time verification. A monitor for a k-checkable property needs only a record of the last k computation cycles. Furthermore, even if a large number of k-checkable properties are monitored, the monitors can share their memory, resulting in memory demand that do not depend on the number of properties monitored. This advantage of locally checkable properties makes them particularly suitable for run-time verification. In the paper, we define locally checkable languages, study their relation to other restricted classes of properties, study the question of deciding whether a property is locally checkable, and study the relation between the size of the property (specified by an LTL formula or an automaton) and the smallest k for which the property is k-checkable.

show abstract

Efficient Monitoring of ω-Languages

Cited by 86 publications

References 26 publications

Optimized temporal monitors for SystemC

Optimized temporal monitors for SystemC

Monitor Circuits for LTL with Bounded and Unbounded Future

On Locally Checkable Properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About