2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Propositional to First-Order Monitoring

Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to introduce a first-order temporal logic, LTL FO , and a corresponding monitor construction based on a new type of automaton, called spawning automaton. Specifically, we show that monitoring a specification in LTL FO boils down to an undecidable decision problem. The proof of this result revolves around specific ideas on what we consider a "proper" monitor. As these ideas are general, we outline them first in the setting of standard LTL, before lifting them to the setting of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ideally, for a monitoring procedure to be practical, we require that it be trace-length independent [5] in the sense that the total space requirement should not depend on the length of the input trace. With this objective in mind, the principal difficulty in monitoring MTL[U, S] is that it allows unbounded intervals and nesting of future and past operators, and hence the truth value of a formula at some point may depend on the truth values of its subformulas arbitrarily far in the future or past.…”
Section: Metric Temporal Logic With Both Forwards and Backwards Tempomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ideally, for a monitoring procedure to be practical, we require that it be trace-length independent [5] in the sense that the total space requirement should not depend on the length of the input trace. With this objective in mind, the principal difficulty in monitoring MTL[U, S] is that it allows unbounded intervals and nesting of future and past operators, and hence the truth value of a formula at some point may depend on the truth values of its subformulas arbitrarily far in the future or past.…”
Section: Metric Temporal Logic With Both Forwards and Backwards Tempomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Summary structures (future formulas) précis no online yes no reduce [4] yes offline no no Chomicki [8,9] no online yes no Krukow et al [10] Bauer et al [11] yes online yes no Basin et al [5,7] no online yes yes Basin et al [6] yes online yes yes Bauer et al [19] no online (automata)* (automata)* Table 1: Comparison of design choices in précis and prior work using first-order temporal logic for privacy compliance. *Automata-based approaches have no explicit notion of summary structures.…”
Section: Implementation and Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We do not insist on these restrictions. In further development, Bauer et al [19], propose an automata-based, incomplete monitoring algorithm for a fragment of FOTL called LTL FO . They consider non-safety policies (unbounded future operators), which we do not consider.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As runtime verification is per definition concerned with the concrete behavior of the real system, it is not surprising that there have been attempts to lift the property specification languages in runtime verification from propositional temporal logics to first-order versions. For example, in [BKV13], the authors describe a runtime monitoring approach that is able to detect violation or compliance of monitored action sequences with respect to properties formulated in a first-order variant of LTL. The monitor construction algorithm uses an automaton type the authors call spawning automaton that extends is constructed similar to the generalized Büchi automaton (GBA) that is typically used as a monitor for LTL.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%