What can we monitor over unreliable channels? (original) (raw)

References

1. Abdulla, P., Baier, C., Iyer, P., Jonsson, B.: Reasoning about probabilistic lossy channel systems. In: International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’20), LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 320–333. Springer (2000)
2. Abdulla, P.A., Jonsson, B.: Verifying programs with unreliable channels. Inf. Comput. 127(2), 91–101 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1996.0053
   Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
3. Aceto, L., Achilleos, A., Francalanza, A., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Lehtinen, K. (2019). Adventures in monitorability: from branching to linear time and back again. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’19), vol. 3. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290365
4. Agrawal, S., Bonakdarpour, B.: Runtime verification of k-safety hyperproperties in HyperLTL. In: Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF’16), pp. 239–252. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CSF.2016.24
5. Alpern, B., Demers, A.J., Schneider, F.B.: Safety without stuttering. Inf. Process. Lett. 23(4), 177–180 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(86)90132-8
   Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
6. ARM Limited (2019) Embedded trace macrocell architecture specification.http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ihi0014q/
7. Baader, F., Bauer, A., Tiu, A.: Matching trace patterns with regular policies. In: International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA’09), LNAI, vol .5457, pp. 105–116. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00982-2_9
8. Baier, C., Engelen, B.: Establishing Qualitative Properties for Probabilistic Lossy Channel Systems, LNCS, vol. 1601, pp 34–52. Springer (1999) https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48778-6_3
9. Barringer, H., Goldberg, A., Havelund, K., Sen, K.: Rule-based runtime verification. In: Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’04), LNCS, vol. 2937, pp. 44–57. Springer (2009)
10. Bartlett, K.A., Scantlebury, R.A., Wilkinson, P.T.: A note on reliable full-duplex transmission over half-duplex links. Commun. ACM 12(5), 260–261 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1145/362946.362970
    Article Google Scholar
11. Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Zălinescu, E.: Runtime verification of temporal properties over out-of-order data streams. In: Computer Aided Verification (CAV’17), LNCS, vol. 10426, pp. 356–376. Springer(2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_18
12. Basin, D.A., Klaedtke, F., Marinovic, S., Zalinescu, E.: Monitoring compliance policies over incomplete and disagreeing logs. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’12), LNCS, vol. 7687, pp. 151–167. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35632-2_17
13. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Monitoring of real-time properties. In: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’06), LNCS, vol. 4337, pp. 260–272. Springer (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11944836_25
14. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. J. Logic Comput. 20(3), 651–674 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exn075
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
15. Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 20(4), 14:1-14:64 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2000799.2000800
16. Belina, F., Hogrefe, D., Sarma, A.: SDL with Applications from Protocol Specification. Prentice-Hall, Inc (1991)
17. Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. J. ACM 30(2), 323–342 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1145/322374.322380
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
18. Budkowski, S., Dembinski, P.: An introduction to Estelle: a specification language for distributed systems. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 14(1), 3–23 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7552(87)90084-5
    Article Google Scholar
19. Cécé, G., Finkel, A., Iyer, S.P.: Unreliable channels are easier to verify than perfect channels. Inf. Comput. 124(1), 20–31 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1996.0003
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
20. Chang, E., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Characterization of temporal property classes. In: International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’92), LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 474–486. Springer (1992)
21. Chen, Z., Wu. Y., Wei. O., Sheng. B.: Deciding weak monitorability for runtime verification. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’18), pp. 163–164. ACM Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3195077
22. Cimatti, A., Tian, C., Tonetta, S.: Assumption-based runtime verification with partial observability and resets. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’19), LNCS, vol. 11757, pp. 165–184. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32079-9_10
23. Clarkson, M.R., Finkbeiner, B., Koleini, M., Micinski, K.K., Rabe, M.N., Sánchez, C.: Temporal logics for hyperproperties. In: International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust (POST’14), LNCS, vol. 8414, pp. 265–284. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54792-8_15
24. d’Amorim, M., Roşu, G.: Efficient monitoring of \(\omega \)-languages. In: Computer Aided Verification (CAV’05), LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 364–378. Springer (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11513988_36
25. Diekert, V., Gastin, P.: First-Order Definable Languages, pp. 261–306. Amsterdam University Press (2008). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46mv83.12
26. Diekert, V., Leucker, M.: Topology, monitorable properties and runtime verification. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 537, 29–41 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.02.052
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
27. Diekert, V., Muscholl, A., Walukiewicz, I.: A note on monitors and büchi automata. In: International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC’15), LNCS, vol. 9399, pp. 39–57. Springer (2015).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25150-9_3
28. Dwyer, M., Avrunin, G., Corbett, J.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), pp. 411–420. ACM Press (1999)
29. Edwards, C.D., Bell, D.J., Gladden, R.E., Ilott, P.A., Jedrey, T.C., Johnston, M.D., Maxwell, J.L., Mendoza, R., McSmith, G.W., Potts, C.L., Schratz, B.C., Shihabi, M.M., Srinivasan, J.M., Varghese, P., Sanders, S.S., Denis, M.: Relay support for the mars science laboratory mission. In: Conference on Aerospace, pp. 1–14. IEEE (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2013.6497325
30. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: Runtime verification of safety-progress properties. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’09), LNCS, vol. 5779, pp. 40–59. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04694-0_4
31. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.C., Mounier, L.: What can you verify and enforce at runtime? Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(3), 349–382 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-011-0196-8
    Article Google Scholar
32. Finkel, A.: Decidability of the termination problem for completely specified protocols. Distrib. Comput. 7(3), 129–135 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02277857
    Article Google Scholar
33. Francalanza, A., Aceto, L., Ingolfsdottir, A.: Monitorability for the Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 51(1), 87–116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-017-0273-z
    Article MATH Google Scholar
34. Garg, D., Jia, L., Datta, A.: olicy auditing over incomplete logs: Theory, implementation and applications. In: Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’11), pp. 151–162. ACM Press (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2046707.2046726
35. Gondi, K., Patel, Y., Sistla, A.P.: Monitoring the full range of \(\omega \)-regular properties of stochastic systems. In: Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation (VMCAI’09), LNCS, vol. 5403, pp. 105–119. Springer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93900-9_12
36. Halbwachs, N., Héry, J.F., Laleuf, J.C., Nicollin, X.: Stability of discrete sampled systems. In: International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT’20), LNCS, vol. 1926, pp. 1–11. Springer (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45352-0_1
37. Hopcroft, J.E., Karp, R.M.: A Linear Algorithm for Testing Equivalence of Finite Automata, Technical Report. Cornell University (1971)
38. ISO, IEC 13239:2002, : Information Technology—Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems—High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Procedures Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2002)
39. Iyer, P., Narasimha, M.: Probabilistic lossy channel systems. In: International Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT’97), LNCS, vol. 1214, pp. 667–681. Springer(1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0030633
40. Joshi, Y., Tchamgoue, G.M., Fischmeister, S.: Runtime verification of LTL on lossy traces. In: Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’17), pp. 1379–1386. ACM Press (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3019612.3019827
41. Kauffman, S., Havelund, K., Fischmeister, S.: Monitorability over unreliable channels. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’19), LNCS, vol. 11757, pp. 256–272. Springer (2019).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32079-9_15
42. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19(3), 291–314 (2001a). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011254632723
    Article MATH Google Scholar
43. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Weak alternating automata are not that weak. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 2(3), 408–429 (2001b). https://doi.org/10.1145/377978.377993
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
44. Lamport, L.: What good is temporal logic? IFIP Congress Elsevier Inf. Process. 83, 657–668 (1983)
    Google Scholar
45. Leucker, M., Sánchez, C., Scheffel, T., Schmitz, M., Thoma, D.: Runtime verification for timed event streams with partial information. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’19), LNCS, vol. 11757, pp. 273–291. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32079-9_16
46. Li, M., Liu, M., Ding, L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Mani, M.: Event stream processing with out-of-order data arrival. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW’07), pp. 67–67. IEEE(2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCSW.2007.35
47. Lomuscio, A., Penczek, W., Qu, H.: Partial order reductions for model checking temporal epistemic logics over interleaved multi-agent systems. In: Interantional Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’10), pp. 659–666. ACM Press (2010). https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2010-276
48. Lozes, É., Villard, J.L.: Reliable contracts for unreliable half-duplex communications. In: Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM’12), LNCS, vol. 7176, pp. 2–16. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29834-9_2
49. Peled, D., Havelund, K.: Refining the safety–liveness classification of temporal properties according to monitorability. In: Models, Mindsets, Meta: The What, the How, and the Why Not? Essays Dedicated to Bernhard Steffen on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, LNCS, vol. 11200, pp. 218–234. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22348-9_14
50. Peled, D., Wilke, T.: Stutter-invariant temporal properties are expressible without the next-time operator. Inf. Process. Lett. 63(5), 243–246 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(97)00133-6
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
51. Peng, W., Makki, K.: Lossy communicating finite state machines. Telecommun. Syst. 25(3), 433–448 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TELS.0000014793.19622.0e
    Article Google Scholar
52. Pnueli, A., Zaks, A.: PSL model checking and run-time verification via testers. In: Formal Methods (FM’06), LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 573–586. Springer (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11813040_38
53. Purandare, R., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.: Monitor optimization via stutter-equivalent loop transformation. In: International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA’10), pp. 270–285. ACM Press (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1869459.1869483
54. Safra, S.: On the complexity of \(\omega \)-automata. In: Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 319–327. IEEE (1988). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1988.21948
55. Sistla, A.P.: Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. Formal Aspects Comput. 6(5), 495–511 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01211865
    Article MATH Google Scholar
56. Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics. J. ACM 32(3), 733–749 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1145/3828.3837
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
57. Sistla, A.P., Žefran, M., Feng, Y.: Monitorability of stochastic dynamical systems. In: Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11), LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 720–736. Springer (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_58
58. Stoller, S.D., Bartocci, E., Seyster, J., Grosu, R., Havelund, K., Smolka, S.A., Zadok, E.: Runtime verification with state estimation. In: International Conference on Runtime Verification (RV’11), LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 193–207. Springer (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_15
59. Stucki, S., Sánchez, C., Schneider, G., Bonakdarpour, B.: Gray-box monitoring of hyperproperties. In: Formal Methods (FM’19), LNCS, vol. 11800, pp. 406–424. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8_25
60. Wang, Z., Zaki, M.H., Tahar, S.: Statistical runtime verification of analog and mixed signal designs. In: International Conference on Signals, Circuits and Systems (SCS’09), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCS.2009.5412620
61. Wolper, P.: Expressing interesting properties of programs in propositional temporal logic. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’86), pp. 184–193. ACM Press (1986). https://doi.org/10.1145/512644.512661
62. Wu, E., Diao, Y., Rizvi, S.: High-performance complex event processing over streams. In: International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD’06), pp. 407–418. ACM Press (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1142473.1142520

Download references