Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are heterogeneous, be- cause they tightly couple computation, communication, and control along with physical dynamics, which are traditionally considered separately. Without a comprehensive modeling formalism, model- based development of CPS involves using a multitude of models in a variety of formalisms that capture various aspects of the system design, such as software design, networking design, physical mod- els, and protocol design. Without a rigorous unifying framework, system integration and integration of the analysis results for vari- ous models remains ad hoc. In this paper, we propose a multi-view architecture framework that treats models as views of the under- lying system structure and uses structural and semantic mappings to ensure consistency and enable system-level verification in a hierarchical and compositional manner. Throughout the paper, the theoretical concepts are illustrated using two examples: a quad- rotor and an automotive intersection collision avoidance system. Index Terms—Control design, control engineering, formal veri- fication, software architecture.

[1]  T. Henzinger,et al.  Algorithmic Analysis of Nonlinear Hybrid Systems , 1998, CAV.

[2]  Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,et al.  Composing heterogeneous reactive systems , 2008, TECS.

[3]  Gaurav Bhatia,et al.  Model-Based Development of Embedded Systems: The SysWeaver Approach , 2006, 12th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS'06).

[4]  Srini Srinivasan,et al.  NAOMI - An Experimental Platform for Multi-modeling , 2008, MoDELS.

[5]  Bruce H. Krogh,et al.  Heterogeneous verification of cyber-physical systems using behavior relations , 2012, HSCC '12.

[6]  Roberto Passerone,et al.  Multiple Viewpoint Contract-Based Specification and Design , 2008, FMCO.

[7]  Jeff Magee,et al.  Concurrency - state models and Java programs , 2006 .

[8]  J. Willems The Behavioral Approach to Open and Interconnected Systems , 2007, IEEE Control Systems.

[9]  Richard N. Taylor,et al.  A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[10]  André Platzer,et al.  Multi-Model Heterogeneous Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems , 2013 .

[11]  Stephan Merz,et al.  The TLA+ Proof System: Building a Heterogeneous Verification Platform , 2010, ICTAC.

[12]  Peter H. Feiler,et al.  Developing AADL Models for Control Systems: A Practitioner's Guide , 2007 .

[13]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  Predicate abstraction for reachability analysis of hybrid systems , 2006, TECS.

[14]  George J. Pappas,et al.  Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[15]  Bruce H. Krogh,et al.  Verification of infinite-state dynamic systems using approximate quotient transition systems , 2001, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[16]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The unified modeling language reference manual , 2010 .

[17]  Xuening Sun,et al.  Methodology for the Design of Analog Integrated Interfaces Using Contracts , 2012, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[18]  David Garlan,et al.  A formal basis for architectural connection , 1997, TSEM.

[19]  Bruce H. Krogh,et al.  Compositional heterogeneous abstraction , 2013, HSCC '13.

[20]  Ajinkya Bhave,et al.  Augmenting Software Architectures with Physical Components , 2010 .

[21]  Craig Shankwitz Determination of the Alert and Warning Timing for the Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System – Stop Sign Assist Using Macroscopic and Microscopic Data , 2010 .

[22]  Luciano Lavagno,et al.  Metropolis: An Integrated Electronic System Design Environment , 2003, Computer.

[23]  Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,et al.  Taming Dr. Frankenstein: Contract-Based Design for Cyber-Physical Systems , 2012, Eur. J. Control.

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

[25]  Aniruddha S. Gokhale,et al.  A Cyber Physical Systems Perspective on the Real-time and Reliable Dissemination of Information in Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2010, Netw. Protoc. Algorithms.

[26]  T. Henzinger The theory of hybrid automata , 1996, LICS 1996.

[27]  Goran Frehse,et al.  Compositional verification of hybrid systems using simulation relations , 2005 .

[28]  Bruce H. Krogh,et al.  An Ontology-Based Approach to Heterogeneous Verification of Embedded Control Systems , 2005, HSCC.

[29]  Oded Maler,et al.  Accurate hybridization of nonlinear systems , 2010, HSCC '10.

[30]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Towards Unified System Modeling and Simulation with ModelicaML: Modeling of Executable Behavior Using Graphical Notations , 2009 .

[31]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  Scalable Semantic Annotation Using Lattice-Based Ontologies , 2009, MoDELS.

[32]  Ajinkya Bhave,et al.  Using parameters in architectural views to support heterogeneous design and verification , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.

[33]  Bradley R. Schmerl,et al.  AcmeStudio: supporting style-centered architecture development , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[34]  André Platzer,et al.  KeYmaera: A Hybrid Theorem Prover for Hybrid Systems (System Description) , 2008, IJCAR.

[35]  Claire J. Tomlin,et al.  Quadrotor Helicopter Trajectory Tracking Control , 2008 .

[36]  David Garlan,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Systems Design and Space Systems Software , 2005 .

[37]  A. Agung Julius,et al.  On Interconnection and Equivalence of Continuous and Discrete Systems - A Behavioral Perspective , 2005 .

[38]  André Platzer,et al.  Differential Dynamic Logic for Hybrid Systems , 2008, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[39]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  A model-based approach to system-level dependency and real-time analysis of embedded software , 2003, The 9th IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, 2003. Proceedings..

[40]  Nancy A. Lynch,et al.  Decomposing Verification of Timed I/O Automata , 2004, FORMATS/FTRTFT.

[41]  Luca P. Carloni,et al.  INTERCHANGE SEMANTICS FOR HYBRID SYSTEM MODELS , 2006 .

[42]  James Davis,et al.  GME: the generic modeling environment , 2003, OOPSLA '03.

[43]  Sandeep Neema,et al.  Toward a semantic anchoring infrastructure for domain-specific modeling languages , 2005, EMSOFT.

[44]  Sandeep Neema,et al.  Modeling methodology for integrated simulation of embedded systems , 2003, TOMC.

[45]  Jianlin Shi,et al.  Combined usage of UML and Simulink in the Design of Embedded Systems : Investigating Scenarios and Structural and Behavioural Mapping , 2007 .

[46]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics Into SysML , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[47]  Joseph Sifakis,et al.  Compositional verification for component-based systems and application , 2010, IET Softw..

[48]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  A framework for comparing models of computation , 1998, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst..

[49]  David Garlan,et al.  Architecture-driven modelling and analysis , 2007 .

[50]  Max Donath,et al.  Macroscopic Review of Driver Gap Acceptance and Rejection Behavior at Rural Thru-Stop Intersections in the US - Data Collection Results in Eight States: CICAS-SSA Report #3 , 2010 .

[51]  Goran Frehse,et al.  PHAVer: algorithmic verification of hybrid systems past HyTech , 2005, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[52]  Mary Shaw,et al.  Software architecture - perspectives on an emerging discipline , 1996 .

[53]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  Ptolemy II, Heterogeneous Concurrent Modeling and Design in JAVA , 2001 .

[54]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  An assume-guarantee rule for checking simulation , 1998, TOPL.

[55]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Formalizing style to understand descriptions of software architecture , 1995, TSEM.