Predictive runtime verification of timed properties

Runtime verification (RV) techniques are used to continuously check whether the (un-trustworthy) output of a black-box system satisfies or violates a desired property. When we consider runtime verification of timed properties, physical time elapsing between actions influences the satisfiability of the property. This paper introduces predictive runtime verification of timed properties where the system is not entirely a black-box but something about its behaviour is known a priori. A priori knowledge about the behaviour of the system allows the verification monitor to foresee the satisfaction (or violation) of the monitored property. In addition to providing a conclusive verdict earlier , the verification monitor also provides additional information such as the minimum (maximum) time when the property can be violated (satisfied) in the future. The feasibility of the proposed approach is demonstrated by a prototype implementation, which is able to synthesize predictive runtime verification monitors from timed automata.

[1]  Jan-Christoph Küster,et al.  Runtime Verification Meets Android Security , 2012, NASA Formal Methods.

[2]  Jan Olaf Blech,et al.  Towards Certified Runtime Verification , 2012, ICFEM.

[3]  Thierry Jéron,et al.  Runtime enforcement of timed properties revisited , 2014, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[4]  Klaus Havelund,et al.  A Tutorial on Runtime Verification , 2013, Engineering Dependable Software Systems.

[5]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Theory of Timed Automata , 1994, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Testing Conformance of Real-Time Applications by Automatic Generation of Observers , 2005, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Olivier Finkel,et al.  Undecidable Problems About Timed Automata , 2006, FORMATS.

[8]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  The Tool KRONOS , 1996, Hybrid Systems.

[9]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Conformance testing for real-time systems , 2009, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[10]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  The HARMONIA Project: Hardware Monitoring for Automotive Systems-of-Systems , 2016, ISoLA.

[11]  Christel Baier,et al.  When Are Timed Automata Determinizable? , 2009, ICALP.

[12]  David L. Dill,et al.  Timing Assumptions and Verification of Finite-State Concurrent Systems , 1989, Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems.

[13]  Gordon J. Pace,et al.  LARVA --- Safer Monitoring of Real-Time Java Programs (Tool Paper) , 2009, 2009 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods.

[14]  Tiziana Margaria,et al.  LearnLib: a framework for extrapolating behavioral models , 2009, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[15]  Lujo Bauer,et al.  Run-Time Enforcement of Nonsafety Policies , 2009, TSEC.

[16]  Martin Leucker,et al.  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, But How Ugly Is Ugly? , 2007, RV.

[17]  Klaus Havelund,et al.  Verify Your Runs , 2005, VSTTE.

[18]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Folk Theorems on the Determinization and Minimization of Timed Automata , 2003, FORMATS.

[19]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study , 2005, EMSOFT.

[20]  Martin Leucker,et al.  A brief account of runtime verification , 2009, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[21]  Martin Leucker,et al.  Runtime Verification for LTL and TLTL , 2011, TSEM.

[22]  Martin Leucker,et al.  Comparing LTL Semantics for Runtime Verification , 2010, J. Log. Comput..

[23]  Yliès Falcone,et al.  Blocking Advertisements on Android Devices Using Monitoring Techniques , 2014, ISoLA.

[24]  Tevfik Bultan,et al.  Runtime Verification of Web Service Interface Contracts , 2010, Computer.

[25]  Véronique Bruyère,et al.  On the optimal reachability problem of weighted timed automata , 2007, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[26]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Extending Promela and Spin for Real Time , 1996, TACAS.

[27]  Fred B. Schneider,et al.  Enforceable security policies , 2000, Foundations of Intrusion Tolerant Systems, 2003 [Organically Assured and Survivable Information Systems].

[28]  Joseph Mendola,et al.  From the Good , 2014 .

[29]  Wang Yi,et al.  Uppaal in a nutshell , 1997, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[30]  Dejan Nickovic,et al.  AMT: A Property-Based Monitoring Tool for Analog Systems , 2007, FORMATS.

[31]  Thierry Jéron,et al.  Predictive runtime enforcement , 2017, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[32]  Stavros Tripakis,et al.  Checking timed Büchi automata emptiness on simulation graphs , 2009, TOCL.

[33]  Daniel Kroening,et al.  A Survey of Automated Techniques for Formal Software Verification , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems.

[34]  Yliès Falcone,et al.  Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities , 2011, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[35]  Xian Zhang,et al.  Runtime Verification with Predictive Semantics , 2012, NASA Formal Methods.

[36]  Yliès Falcone,et al.  Runtime Verification of Safety-Progress Properties , 2009, RV.

[37]  Martin Leucker,et al.  Sliding between Model Checking and Runtime Verification , 2012, RV.

[38]  Thierry Jéron,et al.  Runtime enforcement of regular timed properties by suppressing and delaying events , 2016, Sci. Comput. Program..

[39]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  Monitoring Algorithms for Metric Temporal Logic Specifications , 2004, RV@ETAPS.

[40]  Felix Klaedtke,et al.  Algorithms for monitoring real-time properties , 2011, Acta Informatica.

[41]  Patricia Bouyer,et al.  Symbolic Optimal Reachability in Weighted Timed Automata , 2016, CAV.