Table of Contents
RTAMT is a Python (2- and 3-compatible) library for monitoring of
Signal Temporal Logic (STL). The library implements algorithms offline and online monitoring of discrete-time and dense-time STL. The online monitors support the bounded future fragment of STL. The online discrete-time part of the library has an optimized C++ back-end.
sudo apt install libboost-all-dev
sudo apt install python-dev
sudo apt install python-pip
If your want to extend the specification language, you may need the ANTLR4 parser generator.
sudo apt install antlr4
You will also need CMake version 3.12 or higher if you need to build the CPP backend.
sudo apt install cmake
In our experience, Ubuntu 16.04, 18.04 don't support the versions in default. You can check manual intallation of cmake.
https://cmake.org/install/
git clone https://github.com/nickovic/rtamt
This step is needed only if you want to use the CPP backend and can be skipped if you want to use pure Python monitors.
for Python 2
cd rtamt/rtamt
mkdir build
cd build
cmake -DPythonVersion=2 ../
make
for Python 3
cd rtamt/rtamt
mkdir build
cd build
cmake -DPythonVersion=3 ../
make
for Python 2
cd rtamt/
sudo pip2 install .
for Python 3
cd rtamt/
sudo pip3 install .
for Python 2
sudo pip2 uninstall rtamt
for Python 3
sudo pip3 uninstall rtamt
for Python 2
cd rtamt/
python2 -m unittest discover tests/
for Python 3
cd rtamt/
python3 -m unittest discover tests/
RTAMT is a Python library for offline and online monitoring of (bounded-future)
Signal Temporal Logic (STL). The library is inspired by several theoretical and practical
works:
- The bounded-future fragment of STL is inspired by [2]
- The interface-aware interpretation of STL quantitative semantics is inspired by [3]
- The periodic-sampling interpretation of specifications (even in presence of timestamps that are not prefectly periodic) is inpired by [4]
- The translation of bounded-future STL to "equirobust" past STL prior to the online monitoring phase is inspired by [2]
RTAMT supports Signal Temporal Logic (STL) and interface-aware STL (IA-STL).
The library supports a variant of STL with past and future temporal operators as well as basic arithmetic and absolute value operators.
Semantics of STL is defined in terms of a robustness degree rho(phi,w,t)
, a function defined over real numbers extended with +inf
and -inf
that takes as input an STL specification phi
, an input signal w
and time index t
, and computes how far is the signal w
at time t
from satisfying/violating phi
. The robustness degree function is defined inductively as follows (c
is a real constant, x
is a variable, w_x(t)
denotes the value of w
projected to x
at time t
, a,b
are rational constants such that 0 <= a <= b
and |w|
is the length of w
):
% Constant
rho(c,w,t) = c
% Variable
rho(x,w,t) = w_x(t)
% Absolute value
rho(abs(phi),w,t) = |rho(phi,w,t)|
% Arithmetic operators
rho(phi + psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) + rho(psi,w,t)
rho(phi - psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)
rho(phi * psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) * rho(psi,w,t)
rho(phi / psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) / rho(psi,w,t)
% Numeric predicates
rho(phi <= psi,w,t) = rho(psi,w,t) - rho(phi,w,t)
rho(phi < psi,w,t) = rho(psi,w,t) - rho(phi,w,t)
rho(phi >= psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)
rho(phi >= psi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)
rho(phi == psi,w,t) = -|rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)|
rho(phi !== psi,w,t) = |rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)|
% Boolean operators
rho(not(phi),w,t) = -rho(phi,w,t)
rho(phi or psi,w,t) = max(rho(phi,w,t),rho(psi,w,t))
rho(phi and psi,w,t) = min(rho(phi,w,t),rho(psi,w,t))
rho(phi -> psi,w,t) = max(-rho(phi,w,t),rho(psi,w,t))
rho(phi <-> psi,w,t) = -|rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)|
rho(phi xor psi,w,t) = |rho(phi,w,t) - rho(psi,w,t)|
% Events
rho(rise(phi),w,t) = rho(phi,w,t) if t=0
min(-rho(phi,w,t-1),rho(phi,w,t) otherwise
rho(fall(phi),w,t) = -rho(phi,w,t) if t=0
min(rho(phi,w,t-1),-rho(phi,w,t) otherwise
% Past untimed temporal operators
rho(prev phi,w,t) = inf if t<=0
rho(phi,w,t-1) otherwise
rho(once phi,w,t) = max_{t' in [0,t]} rho(phi,w,t')
rho(historically phi,w,t) = min_{t' in [0,t]} rho(phi,w,t')
rho(phi since psi,w,t) = max_{t' in [0,t]}(min(rho(psi,w,t'), min_{t'' in (t',t]}rho(psi,w,t') rho(phi,w,t'')))
% Past untimed temporal operators
rho(once[a,b] phi,w,t) = -inf if t-a < 0
max_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t-a,t-b])} rho(phi,w,t') otherwise
rho(historically[a,b] phi,w,t) = inf if t-a < 0
min_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t-a,t-b])} rho(phi,w,t') otherwise
rho(phi since[a,b] psi,w,t) = -inf if t-a < 0
max_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t-a,t-b]} (min(rho(psi,w,t'),
min_{t'' in (t',t]}rho(psi,w,t') rho(phi,w,t''))) otherwise
% Future untimed temporal operators
rho(next phi,w,t) = rho(phi,w,t+1)
rho(eventually phi,w,t) = max_{t' in [t,|w|]} rho(phi,w,t')
rho(always phi,w,t) = min_{t' in [t, |w|]} rho(phi,w,t')
rho(phi until psi,w,t) = max_{t' in [t,|w|] min(rho(psi,w,t'),
min_{t'' in [t,t')}rho(psi,w,t') rho(phi,w,t''))) otherwise
% Future timed temporal operators
rho(eventually[a,b] phi,w,t) = -inf if t+a >= |w|
max_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t+a,t+b])} rho(phi,w,t') otherwise
rho(always[a,b] phi,w,t) = inf if t+a >= |w|
min_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t+a,t+b])} rho(phi,w,t') otherwise
rho(phi until[a,b] psi,w,t) = -inf if t+a >= |w|
max_{t' in ([0,t] intersect [t+a,t+b]}(min(rho(psi,w,t'),
min_{t'' in [t,t')}rho(psi,w,t') rho(phi,w,t''))) otherwise
We define the robustness degree rho(phi,w)
as rho(phi,w,0)
.
There are several important points to note about the above syntax and semantics:
- In the online monitoring mode, the library allows only bounded-future STL specifications, meaning that unbounded future operators
always
eventually
anduntil
cannot appear in the specification. - The
prev
andnext
operators are valid only under the discrete-time interpretation of STL - The
unless
operator is added as syntactic sugar - `phi unless[a,b] psi = always[0,b] phi or phi until[a,b] psi
We can see from the semantics of bounded-future STL that the direct evaluation of a formula phi
at time t
may depend on inputs at t'>t
that have not arrived yet.
The library monitors bounded-future STL formulas with a fixed delay. In order to compute rho(phi,w,t)
, the monitor waits for all inputs required to evaluate phi
to become available before computing the robustness degree. This delay is fixed and depends on the specification. For instance, the specification always((req >= 3) -> eventually[0:2]always[0:3](gnt >= 3)
is evaluated with delay 5
- the time needed to capture all inputs required for evaluating bounded eventually
and always
operators. We refer the reader to [2] for algorithmic details regarding monitoring with delay.
The API provides two monitoring classes:
STLDiscreteTimeSpecification
for discrete-time monitorsSTLDenseTimeSpecification
for dense-time monitors
Both classes implement online and offline monitors:
update
method is used for online evaluation .evaluate
method is used for offline evaluation
import sys
import rtamt
def monitor():
# # stl
spec = rtamt.STLSpecification()
spec.declare_var('a', 'float')
spec.declare_var('b', 'float')
spec.spec = 'eventually[0,1] (a >= b)'
try:
spec.parse()
spec.pastify()
except rtamt.RTAMTException as err:
print('RTAMT Exception: {}'.format(err))
sys.exit()
rob = spec.update(0, [('a', 100.0), ('b', 20.0)])
print('time=' + str(0) + ' rob=' + str(rob))
rob = spec.update(1, [('a', -1.0), ('b', 2.0)])
print('time=' + str(0) + ' rob=' + str(rob))
rob = spec.update(2, [('a', -2.0), ('b', -10.0)])
print('time=' + str(0) + ' rob=' + str(rob))
if __name__ == '__main__':
monitor()
import sys
import rtamt
def monitor():
a1 = [(0, 3), (3, 2)]
b1 = [(0, 2), (2, 5), (4, 1), (7, -7)]
a2 = [(5, 6), (6, -2), (8, 7), (11, -1)]
b2 = [(10, 4)]
a3 = [(13, -6), (15, 0)]
b3 = [(15, 0)]
# # stl
spec = rtamt.STLDenseTimeSpecification()
spec.name = 'STL dense-time specification'
spec.declare_var('a', 'float')
spec.spec = 'a>=2'
try:
spec.parse()
except rtamt.STLParseException as err:
print('STL Parse Exception: {}'.format(err))
sys.exit()
rob = spec.update(['a', a1], ['b', b1])
print('rob: ' + str(rob))
rob = spec.update(['a', a2], ['b', b2])
print('rob: ' + str(rob))
rob = spec.update(['a', a3], ['b', b3])
print('rob: ' + str(rob))
if __name__ == '__main__':
monitor()
import sys
import rtamt
def monitor():
req = [[0.0, 0.0], [3.0, 6.0], [5.0, 0.0], [11.0, 0.0]]
gnt = [[0.0, 0.0], [7.0, 6.0], [9.0, 0.0], [11.0, 0.0]]
spec = rtamt.STLDenseTimeSpecification()
spec.name = 'STL Dense-time Offline Monitor'
spec.declare_var('req', 'float')
spec.declare_var('gnt', 'float')
spec.declare_var('out', 'float')
spec.set_var_io_type('req', 'input')
spec.set_var_io_type('gnt', 'output')
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[0:5](gnt>=3)))'
try:
spec.parse()
spec.pastify()
except rtamt.STLParseException as err:
print('STL Parse Exception: {}'.format(err))
sys.exit()
rob = spec.evaluate(['req', req], ['gnt', gnt])
print('Robustness: {}'.format(rob))
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Process arguments
monitor()
The default unit in RTAMT is seconds, and the default expected period between two consecutive input samples is 1s
with 10%
tolerance.
The following program uses these default values to implicitely set up the monitor.
The specification intuitively states that whenever the req
is above 3
, eventually within 5s
gnt
also goes above 3
.
The user feeds the monitor with values timestamped exactly 1s
apart from each other. It follows that the periodic sampling assumption holds.
RTAMT counts how many times the periodic sampling assumption has been violated up to the moment of being invoked via the sampling_violation_counter
member.
In this example, this violation obviously occurs 0
times.
# examples/documentation/time_units_1.py
import sys
import rtamt
def monitor():
spec = rtamt.STLDiscreteTimeSpecification()
spec.name = 'Bounded-response Request-Grant'
spec.declare_var('req', 'float')
spec.declare_var('gnt', 'float')
spec.declare_var('out', 'float')
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[0:5](gnt>=3)))'
try:
spec.parse()
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(1, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(2, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 0
except rtamt.STLParseException as err:
print('STL Parse Exception: {}'.format(err))
sys.exit()
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Process arguments
monitor()
}
The same program, but with slightly different timestamps still reports 0
number of periodic sampling assumption violations. This is because the difference between all consecutive sampling timestamps remains within the (implicitely) specified 10%
tolerance.
# examples/documentation/time_units_2.py
...
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(1.02, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(1.98, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 0
....
On the other hand, the following sequence of inputs results in 1
reported violation of periodic sampling assumption.
This is because the third input is 1.12s
away from the second sample, which is 12%
above the assumed 1s
period.
# examples/documentation/time_units_3.py
...
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(1.02, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(2.14, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 1
This same sequence of inputs results in 0
reported violation of periodic sampling assumption if we explicitely set the sampling period tolerance value to 20%
.
# examples/documentation/time_units_4.py
...
spec.set_sampling_period(1, 's', 0.2)
...
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(1.02, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(2.14, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 0
The user can also explicitely set the default unit, as well as the expected period and tolerance. In that case, the user must ensure that the timing bounds declared in the specification are divisible by the sampling period. The following specification is correct, since the sampling period is set to 500ms
, the default unit is set to seconds, and the specification implicitely defines the bound from 0.5s = 500ms
and 1.5s = 1500ms
, i.e. between 1
amd 3
sampling periods.
# examples/documentation/time_units_5.py
...
spec.unit = 's'
spec.set_sampling_period(500, 'ms', 0.1)
...
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[0.5:1.5](gnt>=3)))'
...
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(0.5, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(1, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 0
}
The following defines the same program, but now with ms
as the default unit.
# examples/documentation/time_units_6.py
...
spec.unit = 'ms'
spec.set_sampling_period(500, 'ms', 0.1)
...
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[500:1500](gnt>=3)))'
...
spec.update(0, [('req', 0.1), ('gnt', 0.3)])
spec.update(500, [('req', 0.45), ('gnt', 0.12)])
spec.update(1000, [('req', 0.78), ('gnt', 0.18)])
nb_violations = spec.sampling_violation_counter // nb_violations = 0
}
The following program throws an exception - the temporal bound is defined between 500ms
and 1500ms
, while the sampling period equals to 1s = 1000ms
.
# examples/documentation/time_units_7.py
...
spec.unit = 'ms'
spec.set_sampling_period(1, 's', 0.1)
...
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[500:1500](gnt>=3)))'
...
spec.parse()
...
}
Finally, the following program is correct, because the temporal bound is explicitely defined between 500s
and 1500s
, while the sampling period equals to 1s
.
# examples/documentation/time_units_8.py
...
spec.unit = 'ms'
spec.set_sampling_period(1, 's', 0.1)
...
spec.spec = 'out = always((req>=3) implies (eventually[500s:1500s](gnt>=3)))'
...
spec.parse()
...
- [1] Dejan Nickovic, Tomoya Yamaguchi: RTAMT: Online Robustness Monitors from STL. CoRR abs/2005.11827 (2020)
- [2] Stefan Jaksic, Ezio Bartocci, Radu Grosu, Reinhard Kloibhofer, Thang Nguyen, Dejan Nickovic: From signal temporal logic to FPGA monitors. MEMOCODE 2015: 218-227
- [3] Thomas Ferrère, Dejan Nickovic, Alexandre Donzé, Hisahiro Ito, James Kapinski: Interface-aware signal temporal logic. HSCC 2019: 57-66
- [4] Thomas A. Henzinger, Zohar Manna, Amir Pnueli: What Good Are Digital Clocks? ICALP 1992: 545-558