Probabilistic Models Toward Controlling Smart-* Environments

Today, a growing number of physical objects in our surroundings are connected to the Internet and provide the digital world with an interface to the physical world through sensors and actuators. At the heart of this trend, smart-* systems and applications leverage this interface to smartly and seamlessly assist individuals in their everyday lives. However, when interacting with the physical world by means of actuators, these applications introduce a methodological disruption. Indeed, in comparison to the classical distributed software applications that operate in the bounded and predictable digital world, these applications operate in and through the physical world, open and subject to uncertainties that cannot be modeled accurately. These uncertainties lead the behavior of the applications to potentially drift at runtime, compromising their intrinsic functionality. In this paper, we propose a framework to estimate the behavioral drift of smart-* systems and applications at runtime. To this end, we first rely on the Moore finite state machine (FSM) modeling framework. This framework is used for specifying the ideal behavior of a smart-* application in terms of the effects, and it is expected to produce within the physical environment as it executes. We then appeal on the control theory and propose a framework for projecting the Moore FSM to its associated continuous density Input/Output hidden Markov model (CD-IOHMM) state observer. By accounting for uncertainties through probabilities, it extends Moore FSM with viability zones, i.e., zones where the effects of a smart-* application within the physical environment are satisfactory without necessarily being perfect. At runtime, the CD-IOHMM state observer can compute the probability of the observed effects, i.e., it gives direct insight into the behavioral drift of the concrete application. We validate our approach on a real data set. The results demonstrate the soundness and efficiency of the proposed approach at estimating the behavioral drift of smart-* applications at runtime. In view of these results, one can envision using this estimation for supporting a decision-making algorithm (e.g., within a self-adaptive system).

[1]  Alex Waibel,et al.  Readings in speech recognition , 1990 .

[2]  James R. Benya Lighting for Schools. , 2001 .

[3]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska From software verification to ‘everyware’ verification , 2013, Computer Science - Research and Development.

[4]  Vikas Chandan,et al.  Non-intrusive estimation and prediction of residential AC energy consumption , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[5]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  Towards Practical Runtime Verification and Validation of Self-Adaptive Software Systems , 2013, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems.

[6]  Stefan Biffl,et al.  Software Engineering for Smart Cyber-Physical Systems -- Towards a Research Agenda: Report on the First International Workshop on Software Engineering for Smart CPS , 2015, SOEN.

[7]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska Advances in Quantitative Verification for Ubiquitous Computing , 2013, ICTAC.

[8]  João Gama,et al.  A survey on concept drift adaptation , 2014, ACM Comput. Surv..

[9]  Michel Riveill,et al.  SLCA, composite services for ubiquitous computing , 2008, Mobility '08.

[10]  Michel Riveill,et al.  WComp middleware for ubiquitous computing: Aspects and composite event-based Web services , 2009, Ann. des Télécommunications.

[11]  David Garlan,et al.  Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems : Assurances , 2014 .

[12]  Diane J. Cook,et al.  Data Mining for Hierarchical Model Creation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[13]  Ezio Bartocci,et al.  Runtime Verification with State Estimation , 2011, RV.

[14]  Oliver Amft,et al.  Mining relations and physical grouping of building-embedded sensors and actuators , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[15]  Luigi Alfredo Grieco,et al.  Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead , 2015, Comput. Networks.

[16]  Jean-Pierre Aubin,et al.  Viability Theory: New Directions , 2011 .

[17]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Input-output HMMs for sequence processing , 1996, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[18]  Illuminating Engineering Society , 1946, Nature.

[19]  Holger Giese,et al.  Living with Uncertainty in the Age of Runtime Models , 2014, Models@run.time@Dagstuhl.

[20]  Nelly Bencomo,et al.  A world full of surprises: bayesian theory of surprise to quantify degrees of uncertainty , 2014, ICSE Companion.

[21]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  Perpetual Assurances for Self-Adaptive Systems , 2019, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems.

[22]  Flora D. Salim,et al.  SECC: Simultaneous extraction of context and community from pervasive signals , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[23]  P. Guttorp,et al.  A non‐homogeneous hidden Markov model for precipitation occurrence , 1999 .

[24]  Bran Selic,et al.  Understanding Uncertainty in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Conceptual Model , 2016, ECMFA.

[25]  Paolo Frasconi Input/Output HMMs: A Recurrent Bayesian Network View , 1997 .

[26]  Nelly Bencomo,et al.  QuantUn: Quantification of uncertainty for the reassessment of requirements , 2015, 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[27]  Claudio Bettini,et al.  Fine-grained recognition of abnormal behaviors for early detection of mild cognitive impairment , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[28]  Arbab Waheed Ahmad,et al.  Energy-Efficient Intelligent Street Lighting System Using Traffic-Adaptive Control , 2016, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[29]  Thomas Weng,et al.  Occupancy-driven energy management for smart building automation , 2010, BuildSys '10.

[30]  Arthur I. Karshmer,et al.  Living assistance systems: an ambient intelligence approach , 2006, ICSE.

[31]  Shunzheng Yu,et al.  Hidden semi-Markov models , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[32]  David Garlan,et al.  Software engineering in an uncertain world , 2010, FoSER '10.

[33]  James L. Crowley,et al.  Early lessons from the development of SPOK, an end-user development environment for smart homes , 2014, UbiComp Adjunct.

[34]  Sebastian Möller,et al.  Modeling User Satisfaction with Hidden Markov Models , 2009, SIGDIAL Conference.

[35]  Ricardo M.S.F. Almeida,et al.  Daylighting in classrooms - the daylight factor as a performance criterion , 2014 .

[36]  Ferdinand Wagner,et al.  Modeling Software with Finite State Machines : A Practical Approach , 2006 .

[37]  Jean Hennebert,et al.  Toward Web Enhanced Building Automation Systems , 2014, Big Data and Internet of Things.

[38]  Geoffrey I. Webb,et al.  Characterizing concept drift , 2015, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[39]  Jiannong Cao,et al.  We help you watch your steps: Unobtrusive alertness system for pedestrian mobile phone users , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[40]  Rogério de Lemos,et al.  Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: Assurances (Dagstuhl Seminar 13511) , 2013, Dagstuhl Reports.

[41]  T. V. D. Graaf,et al.  The international energy agency , 2014 .

[42]  Arkady B. Zaslavsky,et al.  QoE Modelling, Measurement and Prediction: A Review , 2014, ArXiv.

[43]  Stéphane Lavirotte,et al.  On the Behavioral Drift Estimation of Ubiquitous Computing Systems in Partially Known Environments , 2016, MobiQuitous.