Paper detail

Being correct is not enough: efficient verification using robust linear temporal logic

While most approaches in formal methods address system correctness, ensuring robustness has remained a challenge. In this paper we present and study the logic rLTL which provides a means to formally reason about both correctness and robustness in system design. Furthermore, we identify a large fragment of rLTL for which the verification problem can be efficiently solved, i.e., verification can be done by using an automaton, recognizing the behaviors described by the rLTL formula $φ$, of size at most $\mathcal{O} \left( 3^{ |φ|} \right)$, where $|φ|$ is the length of $φ$. This result improves upon the previously known bound of $\mathcal{O}\left(5^{|φ|} \right)$ for rLTL verification and is closer to the LTL bound of $\mathcal{O}\left( 2^{|φ|} \right)$. The usefulness of this fragment is demonstrated by a number of case studies showing its practical significance in terms of expressiveness, the ability to describe robustness, and the fine-grained information that rLTL brings to the process of system verification. Moreover, these advantages come at a low computational overhead with respect to LTL verification.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.