Formal Specification and Analysis of Robust Adaptive Distributed Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Carolyn Talcott
  • Vivek Nigam
  • Farhad Arbab
  • Tobias Kappé
Chapter

Abstract

We are interested in systems of cyber-physical agents that operate in unpredictable, possibly hostile, environments using locally obtainable information. How can we specify robust agents that are able to operate alone and/or in cooperation with other agents? What properties are important? How can they be verified?

In this tutorial we describe a framework called Soft Agents, formalized in the Maude rewriting logic system. Features of the framework include: explicit representation of the physical state as well as the cyber perception of this state; robust communication via sharing of partially ordered knowledge, and robust behavior based on soft constraints. Using Maude functionality, the soft agent framework supports experimenting with, formally testing, and reasoning about specifications of agent systems.

The tutorial begins with a discussion of desiderata for soft agent models. Use of the soft agent framework for specification and formal analysis of agent systems illustrated in some detail by a case-study involving simple patrolling bots. A more complex case study involving surveillance drones is also discussed.

References

  1. 1.
    Robots that fly and cooperate. TED talk (2015). Accessed 07 March 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Das, J., Cross, G., Qu, C., Makineni, A., Tokekar, P., Mulgaonkar, Y., Kumar, V.: Devices, systems, and methods for automated monitoring enabling precision agriculture. In: IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vijay Kumar lab. Accessed 11 March 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M., Koch, N., Mayer, P. (eds.): Software Engineering for Collective Autonomic Systems. The ASCENS Approach. LNCS, vol. 8998. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ascens: Autonomic service-component ensembles. Accessed 15 November 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi, J.-S., McCarthy, T., Kim, M., Stehr, M.-O.: Adaptive wireless networks as an example of declarative fractionated systems. In: Stojmenovic, I., Cheng, Z., Guo, S. (eds.) MOBIQUITOUS 2013. LNICST, vol. 131, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, M., Stehr, M.O., Talcott, C.: A distributed logic for networked cyber-physical systems. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stehr, M.-O., Talcott, C., Rushby, J., Lincoln, P., Kim, M., Cheung, S., Poggio, A.: Fractionated software for networked cyber-physical systems: research directions and long-term vision. In: Agha, G., Danvy, O., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Formal Modeling: Actors, Open Systems, Biological Systems. LNCS, vol. 7000, pp. 110–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Networked cyber physical systems. Accessed 11 March 2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drone swarms: The buzz of the future. Accessed 08 March 2016Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knightscope. Accessed 11 March 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liquid robotics. Accessed 11 March 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Why BNSF railway is using drones to inspect thousands of miles of rail lines. Accessed 11 March 2016Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dantas, Y.G., Nigam, V., Fonseca, I.E.: A selective defense for application layer ddos attacks. In: SI-EISIC (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wirsing, M., Denker, G., Talcott, C., Poggio, A., Briesemeister, L.: A rewriting logic framework for soft constraints. In: Sixth International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and Its Applications (WRLA 2006). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hölzl, M., Meier, M., Wirsing, M.: Which soft constraints do you prefer? In: Seventh International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and Its Applications (WRLA 2008). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gadducci, F., Hölzl, M., Monreale, G.V., Wirsing, M.: Soft constraints for lexicographic orders. In: Castro, F., Gelbukh, A., González, M. (eds.) MICAI 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8265, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arbab, F., Santini, F.: Preference and similarity-based behavioral discovery of services. In: ter Beek, M.H., Lohmann, N. (eds.) WS-FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7843, pp. 118–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, M., Stehr, M.-O., Talcott, C.L.: A distributed logic for networked cyber-physical systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(12), 2453–2467 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi, J.S., McCarthy, T., Yadav, M., Kim, M., Talcott, C., Gressier-Soudan, E.: Application patterns for cyber-physical systems. In: Cyber-Physical Systems Networks and Applications (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stehr, M.-O., Kim, M., Talcott, C.: Partially ordered knowledge sharing and fractionated systems in the context of other models for distributed computing. In: Iida, S., Meseguer, J., Ogata, K. (eds.) Specification, Algebra, and Software. LNCS, vol. 8373, pp. 402–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: Semantics and pragmatics of real-time maude. High. Order Symbolic Comput. 20(1–2), 161–196 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kappé, T., Arbab, F., Talcott, C.: A compositional framework for preference-aware agents (March 2016, submitted)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielson, H.R., Nielson, F., Vigo, R.: A calculus for quality. In: Păsăreanu, C.S., Salaün, G. (eds.) FACS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7684, pp. 188–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielson, H.R., Nielson, F.: Safety versus security in the quality calculus. In: Liu, Z., Woodcock, J., Zhu, H. (eds.) Theories of Programming and Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 8051, pp. 285–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    The maude system. Accessed 15 November 2014Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hölzl, M., Rauschmayer, A., Wirsing, M.: Engineering of software-intensive systems: state of the art and research challenges. In: Wirsing, M., Banâtre, J.-P., Hölzl, M., Rauschmayer, A. (eds.) Software-Intensive Systems. LNCS, vol. 5380, pp. 1–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hölzl, M., Wirsing, M.: Towards a system model for ensembles. In: Agha, G., Danvy, O., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Formal Modeling: Actors, Open Systems, Biological Systems. LNCS, vol. 7000, pp. 241–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J.: Maude-NPA: cryptographic protocol analysis modulo equational properties. In: Aldini, A., Barthe, G., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FOSAD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5705, pp. 1–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dantas, Y.G., Lemos, M.O.O., Fonseca, I.E., Nigam, V.: Formal specification and verification of a selective defense for TDoS attacks. In: Lucanu, D. (ed.) Workshop on Rewriting Logic and Applications (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Talcott
    • 1
  • Vivek Nigam
    • 2
  • Farhad Arbab
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tobias Kappé
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.Federal University of ParaibaJoão PessoaBrazil
  3. 3.LIACSLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centrum Wiskunde & InformaticaAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations