Source author record

Robert M. Hierons

Robert M. Hierons appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Four-valued monitorability of $ω$-regular languages

Runtime Verification (RV) is a lightweight formal technique in which program or system execution is monitored and analyzed, to check whether certain properties are satisfied or violated after a finite number of steps. The use of RV has led to interest in deciding whether a property is monitorable: whether it is always possible for the satisfaction or violation of the property to be determined after a finite future continuation. However, classical two-valued monitorability suffers from two inherent limitations. First, a property can only be evaluated as monitorable or non-monitorable; no information is available regarding whether only one verdict (satisfaction or violation) can be detected. Second, monitorability is defined at the language-level and does not tell us whether satisfaction or violation can be detected starting from the current monitor state during system execution. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a new notion of four-valued monitorability for $ω$-languages and applies it at the state-level. Four-valued monitorability is more informative than two-valued monitorability as a property can be evaluated as a four-valued result, denoting that only satisfaction, only violation, or both are active for a monitorable property. We can also compute state-level weak monitorability, i.e., whether satisfaction or violation can be detected starting from a given state in a monitor, which enables state-level optimizations of monitoring algorithms. Based on a new six-valued semantics, we propose procedures for computing four-valued monitorability of $ω$-regular languages, both at the language-level and at the state-level. We have developed a new tool that implements the proposed procedure for computing monitorability of LTL formulas.

preprint2015arXiv

Decidability and Complexity for Quiescent Consistency and its Variations

Quiescent consistency is a notion of correctness for a concurrent object that gives meaning to the object's behaviours in quiescent states, i.e., states in which none of the object's operations are being executed. Correctness of an implementation object is defined in terms of a corresponding abstract specification. This gives rise to two important verification questions: membership (checking whether a behaviour of the implementation is allowed by the specification) and correctness (checking whether all behaviours of the implementation are allowed by the specification). In this paper, we show that the membership problem for quiescent consistency is NP-complete and that the correctness problem is decidable, but coNP-hard and in EXPSPACE. For both problems, we consider restricted versions of quiescent consistency by assuming an upper limit on the number of events between two quiescent points. Here, we show that the membership problem is in PTIME, whereas correctness is in PSPACE. Quiescent consistency does not guarantee sequential consistency, i.e., it allows operation calls by the same process to be reordered when mapping to an abstract specification. Therefore, we also consider quiescent sequential consistency, which strengthens quiescent consistency with an additional sequential consistency condition. We show that the unrestricted versions of membership and correctness are NP-complete and undecidable, respectively. When by placing a limit on the number of events between two quiescent points, membership is in PTIME, while correctness is in PSPACE. Finally, we consider a version of quiescent sequential consistency that places an upper limit on the number of processes for every run of the implementation, and show that the membership problem for quiescent sequential consistency with this restriction is in PTIME.