Evaluating Adaptation Behavior of Adaptive Systems

With the advent of new computing paradigms, such as Ubiquitous Computing, Ambient Intelligence, and Cyber Physical Systems, promising application domains like Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) and Car2Car have emerged. One key concern in these application domains is that systems are required to dynamically adapt in reaction to changes within the system or its environment. As a consequence, it is indispensable to incorporate corresponding facilities within systems, yielding adequate adaptation behavior to appropriately react on such dynamic changes. The definition of adaptation behavior is, however, a complex task in its own. In order to help engineers working on adaptive systems, we propose in this paper a generic testbed that allows specifying adaptation strategies and evaluating them in a runtime context to improve the adaptation behavior. Our approach further introduces basic visualization features as a means for the engineers to better evaluate the complex dynamic behavior resulting from runtime adaptation.

[1]  Mary Shaw,et al.  Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems through Feedback Loops , 2009, Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems.

[2]  Robert Eschbach,et al.  A Systematic Approach to Construct Compositional Behaviour Models for Network-structured Safety-critical Systems , 2010, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Thomas Bauer,et al.  Risk-based Statistical Testing: A Refinement- based Approach to the Reliability Analysis of Safety-Critical Systems , 2009 .

[4]  Heng Lu A Context-Oriented Framework for Software Testing in Pervasive Environment , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07 Companion).

[5]  B. Cheng,et al.  Specifying adaptation semantics , 2005, WADS@ICSE.

[6]  M. Becker,et al.  Runtime Models for Self-Adaptation in the Ambient Assisted Living Domain , 2008 .

[7]  T. H. Tse,et al.  Testing context-aware middleware-centric programs: a data flow approach and an RFID-based experimentation , 2006, SIGSOFT '06/FSE-14.

[8]  Jeff Magee,et al.  Analysing dynamic change in software architectures: a case study , 1998, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems (Cat. No.98EX159).

[9]  Friedemann Bitsch,et al.  Safety Patterns - The Key to Formal Specification of Safety Requirements , 2001, SAFECOMP.

[10]  Myra B. Cohen,et al.  Covering arrays for efficient fault characterization in complex configuration spaces , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[11]  McMinnPhil Search-based software test data generation: a survey , 2004 .

[12]  John C. Knight,et al.  Reconfiguration assurance in embedded system software , 2005 .

[13]  Holger Giese,et al.  Modular Verification of Safe Online-Reconfiguration for Proactive Components in Mechatronic UML , 2005, MoDELS Satellite Events.

[14]  Hans Hagen,et al.  Analyzing the reliability of communication between software entities using a 3D visualization of clustered graphs , 2008, SoftVis '08.

[15]  Betty H. C. Cheng,et al.  Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software , 2006, ICSE.

[16]  Edward A. Lee Cyber Physical Systems: Design Challenges , 2008, 2008 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC).

[17]  Mark Weiser,et al.  Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing , 1999, MOCO.

[18]  Probabilistic Multi-Person Tracking Ambient Intelligence , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Benoit Baudry,et al.  Artificial table testing dynamically adaptive systems , 2009, ArXiv.

[20]  Sandeep S. Kulkarni,et al.  Correctness of Component-Based Adaptation , 2004, CBSE.