A constraint-based language for modelling intelligent environments

  • María-del-Mar Gallardo
  • Leticia Lavado
  • Laura Panizo
  • Laura Titolo
Original Article


Intelligent environments can be described as hybrid systems, which combine continuous dynamics, modelling the behaviour of physical components, and discrete dynamics, modelling the software components that control the evolution of the physical variables. The growing boom in intelligent environments makes the construction of complex discrete components necessary, which may require the use of more sophisticated concurrent languages. Hy-tccp is a concurrent language for modelling hybrid systems with high-level notations that facilitate the description of computational systems, abstracting away from the implementation details. In this paper, we present an operational semantics based on hybrid automata for Hy-tccp which is a theoretical basis for the analysis and verification of hybrid systems like intelligent environment.


Hybrid Systems Synchronous language Concurrent constraint paradigm Operational semantics Linear temporal logic 


  1. 1.
    Adalid D, Gallardo MM, Titolo L (2014) Modeling hybrid systems in Hy-tccp. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on formal techniques for safety-critical systems (FTSCS 2014), pp 52–57Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur R, Henzinger T, Lafferriere G, Pappas G (2000) Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems. Proc IEEE 88(7):971–984. doi: 10.1109/5.871304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Augusto JC (2009) Increasing reliability in the development of intelligent environments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on intelligent environments (IE’09), IOS Press, pp 134–141Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Augusto JC, Hornos MJ (2013) Software simulation and verification to increase the reliability of intelligent environments. Adv Eng Softw 58:18–34. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Augusto JC, Callaghan V, Cook D, Kameas A, Satoh I (2013) Intelligent environments: a manifesto. Hum Centric Comput Inf Sci 3(1):12. doi: 10.1186/2192-1962-3-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bagnara R, Hill P, Zaffanella E (2008) The Parma Polyhedra Library: toward a complete set of numerical abstractions for the analysis and verification of hardware and software systems. Sci Comput Program 72(1–2):3–21MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balluchi A, Benvenuti L, Benedetto MD, Pinello C, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A (2000) Automotive engine control and hybrid systems: challenges and opportunities. Proc IEEE Spec Issue Hybrid Syst 88(7):888–912Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer K (2012) A new modelling language for cyber-physical systems. PhD thesis, University of KaiserslauternGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berry G (2000) The foundations of Esterel. In: Plotkin G, Stirling C, Tofte M (eds) Proof, language, and interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 425–454Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Boer FS, Gabbrielli M, Meo MC (2000) A timed concurrent constraint language. Inf Comput 161(1):45–83MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Botia JA, Villa A, Palma J (2012) Ambient assisted living system for in-home monitoring of healthy independent elders. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):8136–8148. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brumitt B, Meyers B, Krumm J, Kern A, Shafer S (2000) EasyLiving: technologies for intelligent environments. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–29. doi: 10.1007/3-540-39959-3_2
  13. 13.
    Callaghan V et al (2009) Increasing reliability in the development of intelligent environments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on intelligent environments, IOS Press, vol 2, p 134Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chan M, Estve D, Escriba C, Campo E (2008) A review of smart homes—present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 91(1):55–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comini M, Titolo L, Villanueva A (2011) Abstract diagnosis for timed concurrent constraint programs. Theory Pract Log Program 11(4–5):487–502MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Comini M, Titolo L, Villanueva A (2014) Abstract diagnosis for tccp using a linear temporal logic. Theory Pract Log Program 14(4–5):787–801MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper RA, Dicianno BE, Brewer B, LoPresti E, Ding D, Simpson R, Grindle G, Wang H (2008) A perspective on intelligent devices and environments in medical rehabilitation. Med Eng Phys 30(10):1387–1398. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cousot P, Halbwachs N (1978) Automatic discovery of linear restraints among variables of a program. In: Aho AV, Zilles SN, Szymanski TG (eds) Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM symposium on principles of programming languages, ACM Press, pp 84–96Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frehse G, Le Guernic C, Donzé A, Cotton S, Ray R, Lebeltel O, Ripado R, Girard A, Dang T, Maler O (2011) SpaceEx: scalable verification of hybrid systems. In: Ganesh Gopalakrishnan SQ (ed) Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computer aided verification (CAV), Springer, LNCSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallardo MM, Panizo L (2013) Extending model checkers for hybrid system verification: the case study of SPIN. Softw Test Verif Reliab 24(6):438–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallardo MM, Merino P, Pimentel E (2002) Refinement of LTL formulas for abstract model checking. In: 9th international static analysis symposium, SAS 2002, pp 395–410Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gallardo MM, Lavado L, Panizo L (2016) A simulation tool for tccp programs. In: Proceedings of 24th international workshop on functional and (constraint) logic programming (WFLP 2016), pp 120–134. doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.234.9
  23. 23.
    Gallardo MM, Merino P, Panizo L, Salmerón A (2016) River basin management with SPIN. In: Bonaki D, Wijs A (eds) Model checking software: 23rd international symposium, SPIN 2016 co-located with ETAPS 2016, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 7–8, 2016. Lecture notes in computer science. Proceedings, Springer, Switzerland, pp 78–96. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32582-8
  24. 24.
    Goodloe A, Muñoz C, Kirchner F, Correnson L (2013) Verification of numerical programs: from real numbers to floating point numbers. In: 5th international symposium on NASA formal methods, NFM 2013, Moffett Field, CA, USA, May 14–16, 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7871. Springer, pp 441–446Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gupta V, Jagadeesan R, Saraswat V, Bobrow DG (1995) Programming in hybrid constraint languages. In: Antsaklis P, Kohn W, Nerode A, Sastry S (eds) Hybrid systems II. Springer, Berlin, pp 226–251. doi: 10.1007/3-540-60472-3_12
  26. 26.
    Henzinger TA (1996) The theory of hybrid automata. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, IEEE Computer Society, pp 278–292Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kafalı O, Bromuri S, Sindlar M, van der Weide T, Aguilar Pelaez E, Schaechtle U, Alves B, Zufferey D, Rodriguez-Villegas E, Schumacher MI, Stathis K (2013) COMMODITY12: a smart e-health environment for diabetes management. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 5(5):479–502. doi: 10.3233/AIS-130220 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larsen KG, Pettersson P, Yi W (1997) UPPAAL in a nutshell. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 1(1–2):134–152CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Le Guilly T, Nielsen MK, Pedersen T, Skou A, Kjeldskov J, Skov M (2016) User constraints for reliable user-defined smart home scenarios. J Reliab Intell Environ 2(2):75–91. doi: 10.1007/s40860-016-0020-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li X, Bauer K, Schneider K (2013) Interactive verification of cyber-physical systems: interfacing Averest and KeYmaera. In: Ganzha M, Maciaszek LA, Paprzycki M (eds) Proceedings of the 2013 federated conference on computer science and information systems, Kraków, Poland, pp 1393–1400, 8–11 Sept 2013 pp 1393–1400Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Livadas C, Lygeros J, Lynch N (2000) High-level modeling and analysis of the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). Proc IEEE 88(7):926–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maler O, Batt G (2008) Approximating continuous systems by timed automata. In: Fisher J (ed) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop formal of methods in systems biology (FMSB 2008). Springer, Berlin, pp 77–89. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68413-8_6
  33. 33.
    Navarrete I, Rubio JA, Botía JA, Palma JT, Campuzano FJ (2012) Modeling a risk detection system for elderly’s home-care with a network of timed automata. In: Bravo J, Hervás R, Rodríguez M (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop ambient assisted living and home care (IWAAL 2012). Springer, Berlin, pp 82–89. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35395-6_11
  34. 34.
    Panizo L, Gallardo MM (2012) An extension of Java PathFinder for hybrid systems. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 37(6):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saraswat VA, Rinard M (1989) Concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, ACM, pp 232–245Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saraswat VA, Rinard M (1990) Concurrent constraint programming. In: POPL ’90: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on principles of programming languages, ACM, pp 232–245Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schneider K (2009) The synchronous programming language Quartz. PhD thesis, University of KaiserslauternGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    White J, Thompson C, Turner H, Dougherty B, Schmidt DC (2011) WreckWatch: automatic traffic accident detection and notification with smartphones. Mob Netw Appl 16(3):285–303. doi: 10.1007/s11036-011-0304-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zafari F, Mahmud S, Khan G, Rahman M, Zafar H (2013) A survey of intelligent car parking system. J Appl Res Technol 11(5):714–726. doi: 10.1016/S1665-6423(13)71580-3

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • María-del-Mar Gallardo
    • 1
  • Leticia Lavado
    • 1
  • Laura Panizo
    • 1
  • Laura Titolo
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad de Málaga, Andalucía Tech, Dept. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la ComputaciónMálagaSpain
  2. 2.National Institute of AerospaceHamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations