Towards Certified Runtime Verification

Blech, Jan Olaf; Falcone, Ylìès; Becker, Klaus

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34281-3_34

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 The formula (4) is satisfied in a state ν, if there is at least one run of the model α * starting in the state ν and resulting in a state ω recalled using Υ + . In other words, at least one path through α * explains how the prior state ν got transformed into the posterior state ω.…”

Section: (β) Since ν and ν ω(X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resulting first-order real arithmetic formula can be easily implemented in a runtime monitor that is evaluated by 5 Consecutive states for α * mean before and after executions of α (i. e., in α plugging the concrete values in for x and x + . A monitor is executable code that only returns true if the transition from the prior system state to the posterior state is compliant with the model.…”

Section: (β) Since ν and ν ω(X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 θ is an arbitrary term, often a new (existential) logical variable X . 5 Among all open branches, free logical variable X only occurs in the branches Γ,…”

Section: Appendix 1: Running Example: Water Tankmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 But we focus on verifiably correct runtime validation to ensure that verified properties of models provably apply to the CPS implementation, which is important for safety and certification [5]. Only with such a way of validating model compliance is there an unbroken chain of evidence of safety claims that apply to the actual system, rather than merely to its model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

ModelPlex: verified runtime validation of verified cyber-physical system models

Mitsch

Platzer

2016

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal verification and validation play a crucial role in making cyber-physical systems (CPS) safe. Formal methods make strong guarantees about the system behavior if accurate models of the system can be obtained, including models of the controller and of the physical dynamics. In CPS, models are essential; but any model we could possibly build necessarily deviates from the real world. If the real system fits to the model, its behavior is guaranteed to satisfy the correctness properties verified with respect to the model. Otherwise, all bets are off. This article introduces ModelPlex, a method ensuring that verification results about models apply to CPS implementations. ModelPlex provides correctness guarantees for CPS executions at runtime: it combines offline verification of CPS models with runtime validation of system executions for compliance with the model. ModelPlex ensures in a provably correct way that the verification results obtained for the model apply to the actual system runs by monitoring the behavior of the world for compliance with the model. If, at some point, the observed behavior no longer complies with the model so that offline verification results no longer apply, ModelPlex initiates provably safe fallback actions, assuming the system dynamics deviation is bounded. This article, furthermore, develops a systematic technique to synthesize provably correct monitors automatically from CPS proofs in differential dynamic logic by a correct-by-construction approach, leading to verifiably correct runtime model validation. Overall, ModelPlex generates provably correct monitor conditions that, if checked to hold at runtime, are provably guaranteed to imply that the offline safety verification results about the CPS model apply to the present run of the actual CPS implementation.

show abstract

Section: (β) Since ν and ν ω(X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (β) Since ν and ν ω(X)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 θ is an arbitrary term, often a new (existential) logical variable X . 5 Among all open branches, free logical variable X only occurs in the branches Γ,…”

Section: Appendix 1: Running Example: Water Tankmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

ModelPlex: verified runtime validation of verified cyber-physical system models

Mitsch

Platzer

2016

Form Methods Syst Des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 But we focus on verifiably correct runtime validation to ensure that verified properties of models provably apply, which is important for safety and certification [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ModelPlex: Verified Runtime Validation of Verified Cyber-Physical System Models

Mitsch

Platzer

2014

Runtime Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Formal verification and validation play a crucial role in making cyberphysical systems (CPS) safe. Formal methods make strong guarantees about the system behavior if accurate models of the system can be obtained, including models of the controller and of the physical dynamics. In CPS, models are essential; but any model we could possibly build necessarily deviates from the real world. If the real system fits to the model, its behavior is guaranteed to satisfy the correctness properties verified w.r.t. the model. Otherwise, all bets are off. This paper introduces ModelPlex, a method ensuring that verification results about models apply to CPS implementations. ModelPlex provides correctness guarantees for CPS executions at runtime: it combines offline verification of CPS models with runtime validation of system executions for compliance with the model. ModelPlex ensures that the verification results obtained for the model apply to the actual system runs by monitoring the behavior of the world for compliance with the model, assuming the system dynamics deviation is bounded. If, at some point, the observed behavior no longer complies with the model so that offline verification results no longer apply, ModelPlex initiates provably safe fallback actions. This paper, furthermore, develops a systematic technique to synthesize provably correct monitors automatically from CPS proofs in differential dynamic logic.

show abstract