Inferring event stream abstractions | Formal Methods in System Design Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Inferring event stream abstractions

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a formalism for specifying event stream abstractions for use in spacecraft telemetry processing. Our work is motivated by the need to quickly process streams with millions of events generated e.g. by the Curiosity rover on Mars. The approach builds a hierarchy of event abstractions for telemetry visualization and querying to aid human comprehension. Such abstractions can also be used as input to other runtime verification tools. Our notation is inspired by Allen’s Temporal Logic, and provides a rule-based declarative way to express event abstractions. We present an algorithm for applying specifications to an event stream and explore modifications to improve the algorithm’s asymptotic complexity. The system is implemented in both Scala and C, with the specification language implemented as internal as well as external DSLs. We illustrate the solution with several examples, a performance evaluation, and a real telemetry analysis scenario.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Visualization of information is e.g. at JPL considered an important approach to aid humans in daily spacecraft operations.

  2. \(\mathcal{V}\) can be any set of values that are part of monitored events.

  3. The trace is artificially constructed to have no resemblance to real artifacts.

  4. A limited form of disjunction is also allowed but not described here.

  5. Time stamps have no specified units and their interpretation depends on the specification.

  6. The GUI was designed and implemented by Nathaniel Guy (JPL).

  7. Note that the eDSL uses to denote the start time of an interval, in contrast to the notation in Sect. 4 where it was referred to as start (time).

  8. The eDSL supports unary rules but we will avoid describing them here as they represent a special case.

References

  1. Albarghouthi A, Baier JA, McIlraith SA (2009) On the use of planning technology for verification. In: Proceedings of the ICAPS workshop on verification & validation of planning & scheduling systems (VVPS), Citeseer

  2. Allen JF (1983) Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun ACM 26(11):832–843

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen JF (1984) Towards a general theory of action and time. Artif Intell 23(2):123–154

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Alur R, Fisman D, Raghothaman M (2016) Regular programming for quantitative properties of data streams. In: Programming languages and systems—25th European symposium on programming, ESOP 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Springer, LNCS, vol 9632, pp 15–40

  5. Arasu A, Babu S, Widom J (2006) The CQL continuous query language: semantic foundations and query execution. Int J Very Large Data Bases 15(2):121–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barringer H, Havelund K (2011) TraceContract: a scala DSL for trace analysis. In: Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on formal methods (FM’11). Springer, LNCS, vol 6664, pp 57–72

  7. Barringer H, Goldberg A, Havelund K, Sen K (2004) Rule-based runtime verification. In: International conference on verification, model checking, and abstract interpretation (VMCAI), vol 2937, pp 44–57

  8. Barringer H, Rydeheard D, Havelund K (2008) Rule systems for run-time monitoring: from Eagle to RuleR. J Log Comput 20(3):675–706

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Barringer H, Falcone Y, Havelund K, Reger G, Rydeheard D (2012) Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on formal methods (FM’12). Springer, pp 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32759-9_9

  10. Basin D, Harvan M, Klaedtke F, Zălinescu E (2011) MONPOLY: monitoring usage–control policies. In: 2nd international conference on runtime verification (RV’11). Springer, LNCS, vol 7186, pp 360–364

  11. Basin D, Klaedtke F, Marinovic S, Zălinescu E (2015) Monitoring of temporal first-order properties with aggregations. Formal methods in system design. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10703-015-0222-7

  12. Bauer A, Leucker M, Schallhart C (2007) The good, the bad, and the ugly, but how ugly is ugly? In: 7th International workshop on runtime verification (RV’07). Springer, LNCS, vol 4839, pp 126–138

  13. Bauer A, Leucker M, Schallhart C (2011) Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol (TOSEM) 20(4):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Butler RW, Siminiceanu RI, Muno C (2007) The ANMLite language and logic for specifying planning problems. Report 215088:23681–2199

  15. Chen F, Roşu G (2007) MOP: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: ACM SIGPLAN notices. ACM, vol 42, pp 569–588

  16. CLIPS (2017) Website. http://clipsrules.sourceforge.net. Accessed 21 March 2017

  17. Colombo C, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2009) Larva—safer monitoring of real-time java programs (tool paper). In: Proceedings of the 2009 seventh IEEE international conference on software engineering and formal methods. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, SEFM ’09, pp 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEFM.2009.13

  18. Cranor C, Johnson T, Spataschek O, Shkapenyuk V (2003) Gigascope: a stream database for network applications. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, pp 647–651

  19. Cugola G, Margara A (2012) Processing flows of information: from data stream to complex event processing. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 44(3):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Angelo B, Sankaranarayanan S, Sánchez C, Robinson W, Finkbeiner B, Sipma HB, Mehrotra S, Manna Z (2005) LOLA: Runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning. IEEE Computer Society, pp 166–174

  21. Decker N, Leucker M, Thoma D (2013) jUnitRV—adding runtime verification to jUnit. In: Brat G, Rungta N, Venet A (eds) NASA formal methods, 5th international symposium, NFM 2013, Moffett Field, CA, USA, May 14–16, 2013. Proceedings. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7871, pp 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38088-4_34

  22. Decker N, Leucker M, Thoma D (2016) Monitoring modulo theories. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 18(2):205–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-015-0380-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dillon LK, Kutty G, Moser LE, Melliar-Smith PM, Ramakrishna YS (1994) A graphical interval logic for specifying concurrent systems. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 3:131–165

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Doorenbos RB (1995) Production matching for large learning systems. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

  25. Drools (2017) Website. http://www.jboss.org/drools. Accessed 21 March 2017

  26. Eckert M, Bry F (2009) Complex event processing (CEP). Informatik-Spektrum 32(2):163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ernst MD, Perkins JH, Guo PJ, McCamant S, Pacheco C, Tschantz MS, Xiao C (2007) The Daikon system for dynamic detection of likely invariants. Sci Comput Progr 69(1):35–45

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Falcone Y, Havelund K, Reger G (2013) A tutorial on runtime verification. In: Engineering dependable software systems, pp 141–175. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-207-3-141

  29. Finkbeiner B, Sankaranarayanan S, Sipma H (2005) Collecting statistics over runtime executions. Form Methods Syst Des 27(3):253–274

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Forgy C (1982) Rete: a fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artif Intell 19:17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goubault-Larrecq J, Olivain J (2008) A smell of ORCHIDS. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on runtime verification (RV’08). Springer, LNCS, vol 5289, pp 1–20

  32. Hallé S (2016) When RV, Meets CEP. In: Runtime verification: Proceedings of 16th international conference, RV 2016, Madrid, Spain, September 23–30, 2016. Springer, pp 68–91

  33. Hallé S, Gaboury S, Bouchard B (2016) Activity recognition through complex event processing: first findings. In: AAAI workshop: artificial intelligence applied to assistive technologies and smart environments

  34. Hansen MR, Van Hung D (2007) A theory of duration calculus with application. In: Domain modeling and the duration calculus, LNCS, vol 4710. Springer, pp 119–176

  35. Havelund K (2015) Rule-based runtime verification revisited. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 17(2):143–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Havelund K, Joshi R (2014) Comprehension of spacecraft telemetry using hierarchical specifications of behavior. In: Merz S, Pang J (eds) Formal methods and software engineering: 16th international conference on formal engineering methods, ICFEM 2014, Luxembourg, November 3–5, 2014. Proceedings. Springer International Publishing, LNCS, vol 8829, pp 187–202

  37. Havelund K, Joshi R (2015) Experience with rule-based analysis of spacecraft logs. In: Artho C, Ölveczky CP (eds) Formal techniques for safety-critical systems: third international workshop (FTSCS 2014), November 2014, Luxembourg. Springer International Publishing, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 476, pp 1–16

  38. Havelund K, Peled D, Ulus D (2017) First order temporal logic monitoring with BDDs. 17th Conference on formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD 2017), 2–6 October, Austria. IEEE Computer Society, Vienna, pp 116–123

  39. Jess (2017) Website. http://www.jessrules.com/jess. Accessed 21 March 2017

  40. Kauffman S, Havelund K, Joshi R (2016) nfer—a notation and system for inferring event stream abstractions. In: Falcone Y, Sánchez C (eds) Runtime verification: 16th international conference, RV 2016, Madrid, Spain, September 23–30, 2016, Proceedings. Springer, LNCS, vol 10012, pp 235–250

  41. Kearns SM (1991) Extending regular expressions with context operators and parse extraction. Softw Pract Exp 21(8):787–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380210803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kreps J, Narkhede N, Rao J (2011) Kafka: a distributed messaging system for log processing. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on networking meets databases (NetDB’11). ACM, pp 1–7

  43. Legay A, Delahaye B, Bensalem S (2010) Statistical model checking: an overview. In: 1st international conference on runtime verification (RV’10). Springer, LNCS, vol 6418

  44. Leucker M, Schallhart C (2009) A brief account of runtime verification. J Log Algebr Program 78(5):293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2008.08.004

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Luckham D (2002) The power of events: an introduction to complex event processing in distributed enterprise systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mcdermott D, Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL—the planning domain definition language. Tech. rep., CVC TR-98-003/DCS TR-1165, Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control

  47. Meredith P, Jin D, Griffith D, Chen F, Roşu G (2011) An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-011-0198-6

  48. Moszkowski BC (1985) A temporal logic for multilevel reasoning about hardware. IEEE Comput 18:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Narayan A, Kauffman S, Morgan J, Tchamgoue GM, Joshi Y, Hobbs C, Fischmeister S (2017) System call logs with natural random faults: experimental design and application. In: SELSE-13: the 13th workshop on silicon errors in logic, system effects, Boston, MA, USA

  50. Navabpour S, Joshi Y, Wu W, Berkovich S, Medhat R, Bonakdarpour B, Fischmeister S (2013) RiTHM: a tool for enabling time-triggered runtime verification for C programs. In: Proceedings of the 2013 9th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering. ACM, pp 603–606

  51. QNX (1997) QNX operating system: system architecture. QNX Software Systems Ltd, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  52. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org

  53. Reger G (2014) Automata based monitoring and mining of execution traces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester

  54. Reger G, Cruz HC, Rydeheard D (2015) MarQ: monitoring at runtime with QEA. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS’15)

  55. Rosu G, Bensalem S (2006) Allen linear (interval) temporal logic—translation to LTL and monitor synthesis. In: 18th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV’06). Springer, LNCS, vol 4144, pp 263–277

  56. Siminiceanu R, Butler RW, Muñoz CA (2009) Experimental evaluation of a planning language suitable for formal verification. In: 5th international workshop on model checking and artificial intelligence (MoChArt’08), LNCS, vol 5348. Springer, pp 132–146

  57. Xilinx (2017) Zynq-7000 all programmable soc zc706 evaluation kit. https://www.xilinx.com/products/boards-and-kits/ek-z7-zc706-g.html. Accessed 13 March 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Sean Kauffman & Sebastian Fischmeister

  2. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

    Klaus Havelund & Rajeev Joshi

Authors
  1. Sean Kauffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus Havelund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajeev Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Fischmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Kauffman.

Additional information

The research performed by K. Havelund and R. Joshi and part of the research performed by S. Kauffman was carried out at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The research performed by K. Havelund was furthermore supported by AFOSR Grant FA9550-14-1-0261.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kauffman, S., Havelund, K., Joshi, R. et al. Inferring event stream abstractions. Form Methods Syst Des 53, 54–82 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation