Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis and Design of Uncertain Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computation-Aware Algorithmic Design for Cyber-Physical Systems

Part of the book series: Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications ((SCFA))

  • 86 Accesses

Abstract

Current design practices for cyber-physical systems (CPS) leverage several methods to deal with uncertainty in the requirements, environment, and implementation platform, such as physical and functional redundancy. CPS have evolved in the past decades toward a higher-level of autonomy and a more decentralized and connected implementation. The evolution toward more autonomous systems has changed the computation and communication workloads, demanding particular care in the early design phases to avoid exceeding typical size, power, and cost constraints. Moreover, the use of approximate models, the complexity of the state estimation and controlled problems, and imperfect communications suggest that epistemic uncertainty will play a major role in these systems. After presenting the evolution of CPS over the past two decades, we review the main sources of uncertainty in classical CPS with emphasis on the implementation platform such as failures, timing, and implementation bugs. We present several classical methods to deal with uncertainty and explain why these methods, while still applicable to autonomous systems, are not sufficient. Finally, we present a compositional framework that focuses on requirements and that supports reasoning about aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://lexfridman.com/tesla-autopilot-miles-and-vehicles/

  2. 2.

    Completeness of requirements is in general difficult to define. Informally, a set of requirements “is complete to the extent that all of its parts are present, and each part is fully developed” [12].

  3. 3.

    Under some assumptions on the specification theory, the normal form of the guarantee of a contract can be computed as \(G^{nf}=G\wedge \neg A\) (where \(\neg A\) is the set of environments that do not refine A). In this case, a contract in normal form is also called saturated.

  4. 4.

    We have introduced a ternary predicate \(dist^{\leq }\) such that \(dist^{\leq }(l,l',d)\) is true if the distance between locations l and \(l'\) is less than or equal to d (we are omitting the full axiomatization of such predicate as it is not needed for the purpose of this example).

References

  1. NVIDIA DRIVE AGX Developer Kit, https://developer.nvidia.com/drive/drive-agx

  2. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents: Worldwide operations 1959–2019. Aviation Safety, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle (2019). https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf

  3. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) – Concept of Operations v1.0. Technical report, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2020). https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/UAM_ConOps_v1.0.pdf

  4. S. ARP4754A, Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems (SAE International, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. ARP4761, Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, vol. 12 (SAE International, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. S.S. Bauer, A. David, R. Hennicker, K.G. Larsen, A. Legay, U. Nyman, A. Wasowski, Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design, in International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Springer, 2012), pp. 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  7. F. Belardinelli, A. Lomuscio, Interactions between knowledge and time in a first-order logic for multi-agent systems: completeness results. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 45, 1–45 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Y. Bengio, I. Goodfellow, A. Courville, Deep Learning, vol. 1. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Benveniste, B. Caillaud, D. Nickovic, R. Passerone, J.B. Raclet, P. Reinkemeier, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, W. Damm, T.A. Henzinger, K.G. Larsen, others, Contracts for System Design. Found. Trends Electron. Des. Autom. 12(2–3), 124–400 (2018). Publisher: Now Publishers, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Bertrane, P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, L. Mauborgne, A. Miné, X. Rival, Static analysis and verification of aerospace software by abstract interpretation. Found. Trends Program. Lang. 2(2–3), 171–291 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Bianchi, Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 18(3), 535–547 (2000). Publisher: IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  12. B.W. Boehm, Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Softw. 1(1), 75 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Chiles, Etops redefined. AeroSafety World 2(3), 88–92 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Dahlqvist, M. Patel, A. Rajko, J. Shulman, Growing Opportunities in the Internet of Things (McKinsey, 2019)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), DARPA Tiles Together a Vision of Mosaic Warfare https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/darpa-tiles-together-a-vision-of-mosiac-warfare

  16. A. Dempster, others, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann. Math. Stat. 38(2), 325–339 (1967). Publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. Dreossi, A. Donzé, S.A. Seshia, Compositional falsification of cyber-physical systems with machine learning components. J. Autom. Reason. 63(4), 1031–1053 (2019). Publisher: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  18. M.R. Endsley, Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. J.J. Enright, P.R. Wurman, Optimization and coordinated autonomy in mobile fulfillment systems, in Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. Eykholt, I. Evtimov, E. Fernandes, B. Li, A. Rahmati, C. Xiao, A. Prakash, T. Kohno, D. Song, Robust physical-world attacks on deep learning visual classification, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2018), pp. 1625–1634

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, Reasoning about knowledge and probability. J. ACM (JACM) 41(2), 340–367 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Fagin, Y. Moses, J.Y. Halpern, M.Y. Vardi, Reasoning About Knowledge (MIT Press, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Fitting, First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Fitting, R.L. Mendelsohn, First-Order Modal Logic, vol. 277 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. D.J. Fremont, J. Chiu, D.D. Margineantu, D. Osipychev, S.A. Seshia, Formal analysis and redesign of a neural network-based aircraft taxiing system with VerifAI, in International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (Springer, 2020), pp. 122–134

    Google Scholar 

  26. D. Hastings, H. McManus, A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems, in 2004 Engineering Systems Symposium (2004), pp. 29–31

    Google Scholar 

  27. K. Hayhurst, D.S. Veerhusen, J.J. Chilenski, L.K. Rierson, A Practical Tutorial on Modified Condition/Decision Coverage. NASA Report, NASA/TM-2001-210876 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. E. Hüllermeier, W. Waegeman, Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods. Mach. Learn. 110(3), 457–506 (2021). Publisher: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Jhala, R. Majumdar, Software model checking. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 41(4), 1–54 (2009). Publisher: ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Garamone, Joint All-Domain Command, Control Framework Belongs to Warfighters. https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2427998/joint-all-domain-command-control-framework-belongs-to-warfighters/

  31. N. Kalra, S.M. Paddock, Driving to safety: how many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 94, 182–193 (2016). Publisher: Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  32. K.C. Kapur, M. Pecht, Reliability Engineering, vol. 86 (Wiley, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  33. G. Klein, K. Elphinstone, G. Heiser, J. Andronick, D. Cock, P. Derrin, D. Elkaduwe, K. Engelhardt, R. Kolanski, M. Norrish, others, seL4: Formal verification of an OS kernel, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (2009), pp. 207–220

    Google Scholar 

  34. G. Klein, K. Elphinstone, G. Heiser, J. Andronick, D. Cock, P. Derrin, D. Elkaduwe, K. Engelhardt, R. Kolanski, M. Norrish et al., sel4: Formal verification of an OS kernel, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 22nd Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (2009), pp. 207–220

    Google Scholar 

  35. A. Lavaei, S. Soudjani, A. Abate, M. Zamani, Automated verification and synthesis of stochastic hybrid systems: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.07491 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  36. T.T. LeH., R. Passerone, U. Fahrenberg, A. Legay, Contract-based requirement modularization via synthesis of correct decompositions. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 15(2), 1–26 (2016). Publisher: ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.Y. Le Boudec, P. Thiran, Network Calculus: A Theory of Deterministic Queuing Systems for the Internet, vol. 2050 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  38. F. Leonardi, A. Pinto, L.P. Carloni, A case study in distributed deployment of embedded software for camera networks, in 2009 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (IEEE, 2009), pp. 1006–1011

    Google Scholar 

  39. F. Leonardi, A. Pinto, L.P. Carloni, Synthesis of distributed execution platforms for cyber-physical systems with applications to high-performance buildings, in 2011 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (IEEE, 2011), pp. 215–224

    Google Scholar 

  40. M. Anichini, Solutions to the High Cost of Aircraft Ground Damage: While Paper (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  41. S. Mauw, M. Oostdijk, Foundations of attack trees, in International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology (Springer, 2005), pp. 186–198

    Google Scholar 

  42. T. Nipkow, L.C. Paulson, M. Wenzel, Isabelle/HOL – A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. LNCS, vol. 2283 (Springer, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  43. F. Pasqualetti, F. Dörfler, F. Bullo, Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 58(11), 2715–2729 (2013). Publisher: IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  44. A. Pinto, An open and modular architecture for autonomous and intelligent systems, in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS) (IEEE, 2019), pp. 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  45. A. Pinto, L.P. Carloni, A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A communication synthesis infrastructure for heterogeneous networked control systems and its application to building automation and control, in Proceedings of the 7th ACM & IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software (2007), pp. 21–29

    Google Scholar 

  46. A.J. Ramirez, A.C. Jensen, B.H. Cheng, A taxonomy of uncertainty for dynamically adaptive systems, in 2012 7th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS) (IEEE, 2012), pp. 99–108

    Google Scholar 

  47. I. Robeyns, M.F. Byskov, The Capability Approach. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/ (2016)

  48. Í.Í. Romeo, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, C.W. Lin, E. Kang, Quotient for assume-guarantee contracts, in 2018 16th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design (MEMOCODE) (IEEE, 2018), pp. 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  49. M. Rostami, F. Koushanfar, R. Karri, A primer on hardware security: Models, methods, and metrics. Proc. IEEE 102(8), 1283–1295 (2014). Publisher: IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  50. G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, vol. 42 (Princeton University Press, 1976)

    Google Scholar 

  51. R.C. Smith, Uncertainty Quantification: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, vol. 12 (SIAM, 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. Stamatelatos, W. Vesely, J. Dugan, J. Fragola, J. Minarick, J. Railsback, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications. NASA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  53. D.H. Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution (Quality Press, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  54. L.P. Swiler, T.L. Paez, R.L. Mayes, Epistemic uncertainty quantification tutorial, in Proceedings of the 27th International Modal Analysis Conference (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  55. R. Wilhelm, J. Engblom, A. Ermedahl, N. Holsti, S. Thesing, D. Whalley, G. Bernat, C. Ferdinand, R. Heckmann, T. Mitra, others, The worst-case execution-time problem–overview of methods and survey of tools. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 7(3), 1–53 (2008). Publisher: ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Y. Yeh: Safety critical avionics for the 777 primary flight controls system, in 20th DASC. 20th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (Cat. No. 01CH37219), vol. 1 (IEEE, 2001), pp. 1C2–1

    Google Scholar 

  57. L. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. K. Zhang, J. Sprinkle, R.G. Sanfelice, Computationally aware control of autonomous vehicles: a hybrid model predictive control approach. Autonom. Rob. 39, 503–517 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. K. Zhou, J.C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control, vol. 104 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The NASA University Leadership Initiative (grant #80NSSC20M0163) provided funds to assist the authors with their research, but this article solely reflects the opinions and conclusions of its authors and not any NASA entity.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NASA JPL, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Alessandro Pinto

Authors
  1. Alessandro Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Pinto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Maria Prandini

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Ricardo G. Sanfelice

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pinto, A. (2023). Analysis and Design of Uncertain Cyber-Physical Systems. In: Prandini, M., Sanfelice, R.G. (eds) Computation-Aware Algorithmic Design for Cyber-Physical Systems. Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43448-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation