Challenges in physical modeling for adaptation of cyber-physical systems

Cyber-physical systems (CPSs) mix software, hardware, and physical aspects with equal importance. Typically, the use of models of such systems during run time has concentrated only on managing and controlling the cyber (software) aspects. However, to fully realize the goals of a CPS, physical models too have to be treated as first-class models. This approach gives rise to three main challenges: (a) identifying and integrating physical and software models with different characteristics and semantics; (b) obtaining instances of physical models at a suitable level of abstraction for adaptation; and (c) using and adapting physical models to control CPSs. In this position paper, we elaborate on these three challenges and describe our vision of making physical models first-class entities in adaptation. We illustrate this vision in the context of power adaptation for a service robotic system.

[1]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical Systems Architectures , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[2]  Peyman Oreizy,et al.  Architecture-based runtime software evolution , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[3]  Jorge L. Martínez,et al.  Simplified power consumption modeling and identification for wheeled skid-steer robotic vehicles on hard horizontal ground , 2010, 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[4]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Learning revised models for planning in adaptive systems , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[5]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  Analytic Dependency Loops in Architectural Models of Cyber-Physical Systems , 2015, ACES-MB&WUCOR@MoDELS.

[6]  Nathan Fulton,et al.  KeYmaera X: An Axiomatic Tactical Theorem Prover for Hybrid Systems , 2015, CADE.

[7]  Samuel Kounev,et al.  Modeling run-time adaptation at the system architecture level in dynamic service-oriented environments , 2013, Service Oriented Computing and Applications.

[8]  Valérie Issarny,et al.  Dynamic decision networks for decision-making in self-adaptive systems: A case study , 2013, 2013 8th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS).

[9]  Carlo Ghezzi,et al.  Self-adaptive software needs quantitative verification at runtime , 2012, CACM.

[10]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  Principles of Cyber-Physical Systems , 2015 .

[11]  Radu Calinescu,et al.  Efficient runtime quantitative verification using caching, lookahead, and nearly-optimal reconfiguration , 2014, SEAMS 2014.

[12]  Richard N. Taylor,et al.  Policy-based self-adaptive architectures: a feasibility study in the robotics domain , 2008, SEAMS '08.

[13]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  Architecture-based self-adaptation in the presence of multiple objectives , 2006, SEAMS '06.

[14]  Sebastián Uchitel,et al.  MORPH: a reference architecture for configuration and behaviour self-adaptation , 2015, CTSE@SIGSOFT FSE.

[15]  E. Gat On Three-Layer Architectures , 1997 .

[16]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Requirements-driven software evolution , 2012, Computer Science - Research and Development.

[17]  David Garlan,et al.  Contract-based integration of cyber-physical analyses , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT).

[18]  Fan Zhang,et al.  UrbanCPS: a cyber-physical system based on multi-source big infrastructure data for heterogeneous model integration , 2015, ICCPS.

[19]  Brice Morin,et al.  Models@ Run.time to Support Dynamic Adaptation , 2009, Computer.

[20]  Jeff Magee,et al.  Plan-directed architectural change for autonomous systems , 2007, SAVCBS '07.

[21]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems , 2011, 2011 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems.

[22]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Robots , 1999 .