Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Tooling Offline Runtime Verification against Interaction Models : recognizing sliced behaviors using parameterized simulation (2403.03083v1)

Published 5 Mar 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: Offline runtime verification involves the static analysis of executions of a system against a specification. For distributed systems, it is generally not possible to characterize executions in the form of global traces, given the absence of a global clock. To account for this, we model executions as collections of local traces called multi-traces, with one local trace per group of co-localized actors that share a common clock. Due to the difficulty of synchronizing the start and end of the recordings of local traces, events may be missing at their beginning or end. Considering such partially observed multi-traces is challenging for runtime verification. To that end, we propose an algorithm that verifies the conformity of such traces against formal specifications called Interactions (akin to Message Sequence Charts). It relies on parameterized simulation to reconstitute unobserved behaviors.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (43)
  1. L. Aceto, A. Achilleos, A. Francalanza, A. Ingólfsdóttir, and K. Lehtinen, “Adventures in monitorability: From branching to linear time and back again,” Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 3, no. POPL, jan 2019.
  2. R. Alur, K. Etessami, and M. Yannakakis, “Realizability and verification of MSC graphs,” in Automata, Languages and Programming, 28th International Colloquium, ICALP 2001, Crete, Greece, July 8-12, 2001, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, F. Orejas, P. G. Spirakis, and J. van Leeuwen, Eds., vol. 2076.   Springer, 2001, pp. 797–808.
  3. D. Ancona, A. Ferrando, L. Franceschini, and V. Mascardi, “Coping with bad agent interaction protocols when monitoring partially observable multiagent systems,” in Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Complexity: The PAAMS Collection, Y. Demazeau, B. An, J. Bajo, and A. Fernández-Caballero, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 59–71.
  4. D. P. Attard, L. Aceto, A. Achilleos, A. Francalanza, A. Ingólfsdóttir, and K. Lehtinen, “Better late than never or: Verifying asynchronous components at runtime,” in Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components, and Systems, K. Peters and T. A. C. Willemse, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 207–225.
  5. D. P. Attard and A. Francalanza, “Trace partitioning and local monitoring for asynchronous components,” in Software Engineering and Formal Methods, A. Cimatti and M. Sirjani, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 219–235.
  6. B. Bannour, C. Gaston, and D. Servat, “Eliciting unitary constraints from timed sequence diagram with symbolic techniques: Application to testing,” in 18th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2011, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, December 5-8, 2011, T. D. Thu and K. R. P. H. Leung, Eds.   IEEE Computer Society, 2011, pp. 219–226.
  7. E. Bartocci, Y. Falcone, A. Francalanza, and G. Reger, “Introduction to runtime verification,” in Lectures on Runtime Verification - Introductory and Advanced Topics, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, E. Bartocci and Y. Falcone, Eds.   Springer, 2018, vol. 10457, pp. 1–33.
  8. A. Bauer and Y. Falcone, “Decentralised LTL monitoring,” Formal Methods Syst. Des., vol. 48, no. 1-2, pp. 46–93, 2016.
  9. N. Benharrat, C. Gaston, R. M. Hierons, A. Lapitre, and P. Le Gall, “Constraint-based oracles for timed distributed systems,” in Testing Software and Systems, N. Yevtushenko, A. R. Cavalli, and H. Yenigün, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 276–292.
  10. L. Bocchi, T. Chen, R. Demangeon, K. Honda, and N. Yoshida, “Monitoring networks through multiparty session types,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 669, pp. 33–58, 2017.
  11. A. Cavalcanti, M. Gaudel, and R. M. Hierons, “Conformance relations for distributed testing based on CSP,” in Testing Software and Systems - 23rd IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference, ICTSS 2011, Paris, France, November 7-10, 2011. Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, B. Wolff and F. Zaïdi, Eds., vol. 7019.   Springer, 2011, pp. 48–63.
  12. H. Dan and R. M. Hierons, “The oracle problem when testing from mscs,” Comput. J., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 987–1001, 2014.
  13. A. El-Hokayem and Y. Falcone, “Monitoring decentralized specifications,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, July 10 - 14, 2017, T. Bultan and K. Sen, Eds.   ACM, 2017, pp. 125–135.
  14. A. Engels, S. Mauw, and M. Reniers, “A hierarchy of communication models for message sequence charts,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 253–292, 2002.
  15. Y. Falcone, S. Krstic, G. Reger, and D. Traytel, “A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools,” Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 255–284, 2021.
  16. J. P. Faria and A. C. R. Paiva, “A toolset for conformance testing against UML sequence diagrams based on event-driven colored petri nets,” Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 285–304, 2016.
  17. C. A. Fowler and R. J. Hammel, “Converting pcaps into weka mineable data,” in 15th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD), 2014, pp. 1–6.
  18. R. M. Hierons, M. G. Merayo, and M. Núñez, “Controllable test cases for the distributed test architecture,” in Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, 6th International Symposium, ATVA 2008, Seoul, Korea, October 20-23, 2008. Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, S. D. Cha, J. Choi, M. Kim, I. Lee, and M. Viswanathan, Eds., vol. 5311.   Springer, 2008, pp. 201–215.
  19. ——, “Scenarios-based testing of systems with distributed ports,” Softw. Pract. Exp., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 999–1026, 2011.
  20. K. Inçki and I. Ari, “A novel runtime verification solution for iot systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 13 501–13 512, 2018.
  21. ITU, “Message sequence chart (msc),” itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.120, 08 2011.
  22. J.-P. Katoen and L. Lambert, “Pomsets for message sequence charts,” 1998, pp. 197–207, formale Beschreibungstechniken fuer verteilte Systeme, 8. GI/ITG-Fachgespraech.
  23. A. Knapp and T. Mossakowski, “UML Interactions Meet State Machines - An Institutional Approach,” in 7th Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science (CALCO 2017), ser. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), F. Bonchi and B. König, Eds., vol. 72.   Dagstuhl, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017, pp. 15:1–15:15.
  24. L. Lamport, “Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system,” in Concurrency: the Works of Leslie Lamport, D. Malkhi, Ed.   ACM, 2019, pp. 179–196.
  25. M. Lohrey, “Realizability of high-level message sequence charts: Closing the gaps,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 309, no. 1, p. 529–554, dec 2003.
  26. E. Mahe, “Hibou tool,” github.com/erwanM974/hibou_label, 2022.
  27. ——, “Coq proof for the equivalence of the semantics with co-regions,” erwanm974.github.io/coq_interaction_semantics_equivalence_with_coregions/, 02 2023.
  28. ——, “Experiments on the simulation-based algorithm implemented in hibou for recognising multitrace slices,” github.com/erwanM974/hibou_simulation_usecases_for_slice_recognition, 03 2023.
  29. E. Mahe, B. Bannour, C. Gaston, A. Lapitre, and P. Le Gall, “A small-step approach to multi-trace checking against interactions,” ser. SAC ’21.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, p. 1815–1822.
  30. ——, “Interaction-based offline runtime verification of distributed systems,” in to appear in Fundamentals of Software Engineering (FSEN), Theran, Iran, 2023.
  31. E. Mahe, C. Gaston, and P. L. Gall, “Revisiting semantics of interactions for trace validity analysis,” in Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering - 23rd International Conference, FASE 2020, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2020, Dublin, Ireland, April 25-30, 2020, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, H. Wehrheim and J. Cabot, Eds., vol. 12076.   Springer, 2020, pp. 482–501.
  32. E. Mahe, C. Gaston, and P. Le Gall, “Equivalence of denotational and operational semantics for interaction languages,” in Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering, Y. Aït-Ameur and F. Crăciun, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 113–130.
  33. S. Mauw and M. A. Reniers, “High-level message sequence charts,” in SDL ’97 Time for Testing, SDL, MSC and Trends - 8th International SDL Forum, Proceedings.   Elsevier, 1997, pp. 291–306.
  34. S. McCanne, “libpcap: An architecture and optimization methodology for packet capture,” 2011.
  35. Z. Micskei and H. Waeselynck, “The many meanings of uml 2 sequence diagrams: a survey,” Software & Systems Modeling, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 489–514, 2011.
  36. I. Mouakher, F. Dhaou, and J. C. Attiogbé, “Event-based semantics of UML 2.x concurrent sequence diagrams for formal verification,” J. Comput. Sci. Technol., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 4–28, 2022.
  37. H. N. Nguyen, P. Poizat, and F. Zaïdi, “Passive conformance testing of service choreographies,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2012, Riva, Trento, Italy, March 26-30, 2012, S. Ossowski and P. Lecca, Eds.   ACM, 2012, pp. 1528–1535.
  38. OMG, “Unified modeling language,” omg.org/spec/UML/, 12 2017.
  39. J. Parrow, “An introduction to the π𝜋\piitalic_π-calculus,” in Handbook of Process Algebra, J. A. Bergstra, A. Ponse, and S. A. Smolka, Eds.   North-Holland / Elsevier, 2001, pp. 479–543.
  40. G. Plotkin, “A structural approach to operational semantics,” The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, vol. 60-61, pp. 17–139, 07 2004.
  41. V. Pratt, “Modeling concurrency with partial orders,” Int. J. Parallel Program., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 33–71, feb 1986.
  42. C. Sánchez, G. Schneider, W. Ahrendt, E. Bartocci, D. Bianculli, C. Colombo, Y. Falcone, A. Francalanza, S. Krstic, J. M. Lourenço, D. Nickovic, G. J. Pace, J. Rufino, J. Signoles, D. Traytel, and A. Weiss, “A survey of challenges for runtime verification from advanced application domains (beyond software),” Formal Methods Syst. Des., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 279–335, 2019.
  43. K. Sen, A. Vardhan, G. Agha, and G. Rosu, “Efficient decentralized monitoring of safety in distributed systems,” in 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), 23-28 May 2004, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, A. Finkelstein, J. Estublier, and D. S. Rosenblum, Eds.   IEEE Computer Society, 2004, pp. 418–427. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2004.1317464
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets