Centralized vs decentralized monitors for hyperproperties
From MaRDI portal
Cites work
- A lower bound on the number of opinions needed for fault-tolerant decentralized run-time monitoring
- A process calculus approach to detection and mitigation of PLC malware
- A theory of design-by-contract for distributed multiparty interactions
- A theory of monitors
- An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking
- Consistently-detecting monitors
- Constraint-based monitoring of hyperproperties
- Decentralized Asynchronous Crash-resilient Runtime Verification
- Distributed system contract monitoring
- Monitorability for the Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion
- Monitoring hyperproperties
- Monitoring hyperproperties with circuits
- Monitoring networks through multiparty session types
- Monitors and blame assignment for higher-order session types
- On first-order runtime enforcement of branching-time properties
- Proof systems for satisfiability in Hennessy-Milner logic with recursion
- Refusal testing
- Results on the propositional \(\mu\)-calculus
- Rewriting-based runtime verification for alternation-free HyperLTL
- Second-order hyperproperties
- Software Verification of Hyperproperties Beyond k-Safety
- Temporal logic can be more expressive
- Testing equivalence vs. runtime monitoring
- The timed failures -- Stability model for CSP
- “Sometimes” and “not never” revisited
This page was built for publication: Centralized vs decentralized monitors for hyperproperties
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6859955)
