Advertisement

Generic Negative Scenarios for the Specification of Collaborative Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Viktoria StenkovaEmail author
  • Jennifer Brings
  • Marian Daun
  • Thorsten Weyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)

Abstract

Collaborative cyber-physical systems face a plethora of different albeit often similar set-ups they might find themselves in during runtime. While it is necessary to consider each possible configuration to ensure safe operation of a collaborative cyber-physical system, the sheer number of unwanted behaviors makes manual safety assurance tasks daunting. The specification of unwanted behavior in negative scenarios helps identifying and correcting safety-critical design flaws. However, this requires negative scenarios for collaborative cyber-physical systems to be identified and the essential pieces of information therein to be consolidated and reduced to a manageable size. To this end we present a semi-automated approach that (1) generates negative scenarios from main scenarios considering all possible configurations and (2) generates generic negative scenarios using dedicated abstraction mechanisms that provide a condensed view on unwanted behaviors. The application of our approach to a case example from the automotive domain demonstrates its usefulness and appropriateness.

Keywords

Negative scenarios Message Sequence Charts Safety analysis Cyber-physical systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01IS16043V). We like to thank our industrial partners for their support. Namely, we thank Frank Houdek (Daimler AG).

References

  1. 1.
    Weidenhaupt, K., Pohl, K., Jarke, M., Haumer, P.: Scenario usage in system development: a report on current practice. IEEE International Conference Requirements Engineering (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Some, S.S.: Use cases based requirements validation with scenarios. In: IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases. Requir. Eng. 10, 34–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daun, M., Tenbergen, B., Weyer, T.: Requirements Viewpoint. In: Pohl, K., Hönninger, H., Achatz, R., Broy, M. (eds.) Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Systems, The SPES 2020 Methodology, pp. 51–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34614-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broy, M.: Engineering cyber-physical systems: challenges and foundations. In: Aiguier, M., Caseau, Y., Krob, D., Rauzy, A. (eds.) Complex Systems Design & Management, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34404-6_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang, W., Xu, C., Pan, M., Ma, X., Lu, J.: Improving verification accuracy of CPS by modeling and calibrating interaction uncertainty. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 18, 20 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gheorghita, S.V., et al.: System-scenario-based design of dynamic embedded systems. ACM Trans. Autom. Electron. Syst. 14, 3:1–3:45 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brings, J., et al.: Model-based documentation of dynamicity constraints for collaborative cyber-physical system architectures: findings from an industrial case study. J. Syst. Archit. 97, 153–167 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Z.120 : Message Sequence Chart (MSC)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daun, M., Brings, J., Krajinski, L., Weyer, T.: On the benefits of using dedicated models in validation processes for behavioral specifications. In: International Conference on Software and System Processes, pp. 44–53 (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daun, M., Weyer, T., Pohl, K.: Improving manual reviews in function-centered engineering of embedded systems using a dedicated review model. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(6), 3421–3459 (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milanes, V., Shladover, S.E., Spring, J., Nowakowski, C., Kawazoe, H., Nakamura, M.: Cooperative adaptive cruise control in real traffic situations. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15, 296–305 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrara, A.: Scaled experimental study of an automatic collision avoidance system for passenger cars. IFAC Proc. 38, 301–306 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellahyani, A., El Ansari, M., El Jaafari, I.: Traffic sign detection and recognition based on random forests. Appl. Soft Comput. 46, 805–815 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Negative scenarios for implied scenario elicitation. 27, 109–118 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whittle, J., Wijesekera, D., Hartong, M.: Executable misuse cases for modeling security concerns. In: 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 121–130 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenyer, J., Gritzner, D., König, F., Dahlke, J., Shi, J., Wete, E.: From scenario modeling to scenario programming for reactive systems with dynamic topology. In: 11th Joint Meeting Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 974–978 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pergl, R., Sales, T.P., Rybola, Z.: Instance-level modelling and simulation revisited. In: Barjis, J., Gupta, A., Meshkat, A. (eds.) EOMAS 2013. LNBIP, vol. 153, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41638-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jahn, M., Roth, B., Jablonski, S.: Instance specialization-a pattern for multi-level metamodelling. In: MULTI@ MoDELS, pp. 23–32 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solmi, R.: Instance modeling assisted by an optional meta level. In: International Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, pp. 53–57. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ehrig, K., Küster, J.M., Taentzer, G.: Generating instance models from meta models. Softw. Syst. Model. 8, 479–500 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haworth, B., Kirsopp, C., Roper, M., Shepperd, M., Webster, S.: Towards the development of adequacy criteria for object-oriented systems. In: 5th European Conference on Software Testing Analysis and Review. pp. 417–427 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matsuoka, Y., Aoki, T., Inenaga, S., Bannai, H., Takeda, M.: Generalized pattern matching and periodicity under substring consistent equivalence relations. Theor. Comput. Sci. 656, 225–233 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.paluno – The Ruhr Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations