Runtime Verification for LTL and TLTL

Abstract

This paper studies runtime verification of properties expressed either in lineartime temporal logic (LTL) or timed lineartime temporal logic (TLTL). It classifies runtime verification in identifying its distinguishing features to model checking and testing, respectively. It introduces a three-valued semantics (with truth values true, false, inconclusive) as an adequate interpretation as to whether a partial observation of a running system meets an LTL or TLTL property.For LTL, a conceptually simple monitor generation procedure is given, which is optimal in two respects: First, the size of the generated deterministic monitor is minimal, and, second, the monitor identifies a continuously monitored trace as either satisfying or falsifying a property as early as possible. The feasibility of the developed methodology is demontrated using a collection of real-world temporal logic specifications. Moreover, the presented approach is related to the properties monitorable in general and is compared to existing concepts in the literature. It is shown that the set of monitorable properties does not only encompass the safety and co-safety properties but is strictly larger.For TLTL, the same road map is followed by first defining a three-valued semantics. The corresponding construction of a timed monitor is more involved, yet, as shown, possible.

Synthesising Correct Concurrent Runtime Monitors

“…The correctness of monitor synthesis has been studied previously by the seminal work of Geilen, [23], and (more formally) by subsequent work such as that of Sen et al, [34], and Bauer et al, [5]. Our approach differs from these studies in a number of respects.…”

Rapidly Adjustable Non-intrusive Online Monitoring for Multi-core Systems

“…This function provides a closed scope for specifying properties in different propositional temporal logics. For example, LTL or SALT [7] can be used with classical (finitary) semantics or more informative ones like LTL 3 [6]. Especially for the last one, this closed scope is needed because the LTL formula has to be processed in a complex way to build the monitor.…”

Sampling-Based Reactive Motion Planning with Temporal Logic Constraints and Imperfect State Information

“…To achieve this, it is necessary to verify which transitions of the FIRM do not violate the LTL specification. A similar problem has been solved in the literature for deterministic systems with perfect state information [2,19] using a monitor [4] which identifies if a specification has been satisfied or falsified as early as possible. In this work, since the state of the system is unknown, we use the Rabin automaton instead.…”

“…The mission of the robot is to visit the areas marked by the atomic proposition π 1 , π 2 and π 3 , in any order, while the areas marked with π 4 are avoided. Formally, this specification can be written as ϕ = (¬π 4 …”