Abstract
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) consist of integration of computational components in the cyber-domain with the physical domain processes. The physical domain processes consist of actuators which are coordinated and controlled by the computational components via a communication network, where the computational processes are usually affected by the feedback provided by the sensors in the physical domain. In the cyber-domain, the computational and communication cores monitor and manipulate the discrete signals, whereas, in the physical domain, energy flows, which are mostly continuous domain signals, govern the physical dynamics of the system. Due to the juxtaposition of cross-layer components (physical, network, control, system, operation, etc.) and cross-domain components, CPS provides various technology solutions to multiple fields (automotive, manufacturing, health care, etc.).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rajkumar, R., Lee, I., Sha, L., & Stankovic, J. (2010). Cyber-physical systems: the next computing revolution. In Design Automation Conference (pp. 731–736). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Lee, E. A. (2008). Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. In 2008 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Shi, J., Wan, J., Yan, H., & Suo, H. (2011). A survey of cyber-physical systems. In 2011 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP) (pp 1–6). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Graja, I., Kallel, S., Guermouche, N., Cheikhrouhou, S., & Hadj Kacem, A. (2018). A comprehensive survey on modeling of cyber-physical systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (p. e4850).
Lam, R. R., Horesh, L., Avron, H., & Willcox, K. E. (2017). Should you derive, or let the data drive? An optimization framework for hybrid first-principles data-driven modeling. arXiv:1711.04374.
Franca, R. B., Bodeveix, J.-P., Filali, M., Rolland, J.-F., Chemouil, D., & Thomas, D. (2007). The AADL behaviour annex–experiments and roadmap. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2007) (pp. 377–382). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Bock, C. (2006). SysML and UML 2 support for activity modeling. Systems Engineering, 9(2), 160–186.
Constructions Aeronautiques, Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, I. D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., et al. (1998). PDDL - The Planning Domain Definition Language.
Sztipanovits, J., Bapty, T., Neema, S., Howard, L., & Jackson, E. (2014). OpenMETA: A model-and component-based design tool chain for cyber-physical systems. In From programs to systems. The systems perspective in computing (pp. 235–248). Berlin: Springer.
Kottenstette, N., Karsai, G., & Sztipanovits, J. The ESMoL language and tools for high-confidence distributed control systems design. Part 1: Design language, modeling framework, and analysis. ISIS, 10, 109.
Buck, J. T., Ha, S., Lee, E. A., & Messerschmitt, D. G. (1994). Ptolemy: A framework for simulating and prototyping heterogeneous systems.
Sharma, A. B., Ivančić, F., Niculescu-Mizil, A., Chen, H., & Jiang, G. (2014). Modeling and analytics for cyber-physical systems in the age of big data. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 41(4), 74–77.
Lee, E. (2015). The past, present and future of cyber-physical systems: A focus on models. Sensors, 15(3), 4837–4869.
Solomatine, D., See, L. M., & Abrahart, R.J. (2009). Data-driven modelling: Concepts, approaches and experiences. In Practical hydroinformatics (pp. 17–30). Berlin: Springer.
Standaert, F.-X., Malkin, T. G., & Yung, M. (2009). A unified framework for the analysis of side-channel key recovery attacks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Berlin: Springer.
Cardenas, A., Amin, S., Sinopoli, B., Giani, A., Perrig, A., & Sastry, S. (2009). Challenges for securing cyber physical systems. In Workshop on Future Directions in Cyber-Physical Systems Security.
Pasqualetti, F., Dörfler, F., & Bullo, F. (2012). Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems–part II: Centralized and distributed monitor design. arXiv:1202.6049
Giraldo, J., Urbina, D., Cardenas, A., Valente, J., Faisal, M., Ruths, J., et al. (2018). A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(4), 76.
Negri, E., Fumagalli, L., & Macchi, M. (2017). A review of the roles of digital twin in CPS-based production systems. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 939–948.
Grieves, M., & Vickers, J. (2017). Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems. Berlin: Springer.
Schmitt, R., Rose, S., et al. (2015). Advance: Digital Enterprise—on the way to industrie 4.0. https://goo.gl/LtL5oy.
General Electric Company. (2016). GE Digital Twin: Analytic engine for the digital power plant. https://goo.gl/bhQzRF.
Glaessgen, E., & Stargel, D. (2012). The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and US Air Force vehicles. In Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference.
Kraft, E. M. (2016). The Air Force Digital thread/digital twin-life cycle integration and use of computational and experimental knowledge. In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rokka Chhetri, S., Al Faruque, M.A. (2020). Introduction. In: Data-Driven Modeling of Cyber-Physical Systems using Side-Channel Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37962-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37962-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37961-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37962-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)