Papers › Offline Runtime Verification of Safety Requirements using CSP
Offline Runtime Verification of Safety Requirements using CSP
Matt Luckcuck
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Dynamic formal verification is a key tool for providing ongoing confidence that a system is meeting its requirements while in use, especially when paired with static formal verification before the system is in use. This paper presents a workflow and Runtime Verification (RV) toolchain, Varanus, and their application to an industrial case study. Using the workflow we manually derive a Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) model from natural-language safety requirements documents, which Varanus uses as the monitor oracle. This reuse of the model means that the monitor oracle does not have to be developed separately, risking inconsistencies between it and the model for static verification. The approach is demonstrated by the offline RV of a teleoperated manipulation system, called MASCOT, which enables remote operations inside the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor. We describe our model of the MASCOT safety design documents (including how the modelling process revealed an underspecification in the design) and evaluate the Varanus toolchain's utility. The workflow and tool provide validation of the safety documents, traceability of the safety properties from the documentation to the system, and a verified oracle for RV.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections