Advertisement

Designing Reliable Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Gadi Aleksandrowicz
  • Eli Arbel
  • Roderick Bloem
  • Timon D. ter Braak
  • Sergei Devadze
  • Goerschwin Fey
  • Maksim Jenihhin
  • Artur Jutman
  • Hans G. Kerkhoff
  • Robert Könighofer
  • Shlomit Koyfman
  • Jan Malburg
  • Shiri Moran
  • Jaan Raik
  • Gerard Rauwerda
  • Heinz Riener
  • Franz Röck
  • Konstantin Shibin
  • Kim Sunesen
  • Jinbo Wan
  • Yong Zhao
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 454)

Abstract

Cyber-physical systems, that consist of a cyber part—a computing system—and a physical part—the system in the physical environment—as well as the respective interfaces between those parts, are omnipresent in our daily lives. The application in the physical environment drives the overall requirements that must be respected when designing the computing system. Here, reliability is a core aspect where some of the most pressing design challenges are:
  • monitoring failures throughout the computing system,

  • determining the impact of failures on the application constraints, and

  • ensuring correctness of the computing system with respect to application-driven requirements rooted in the physical environment.

This chapter gives an overview of the state-of-the-art techniques developed within the Horizon 2020 project IMMORTAL that tackle these challenges throughout the stack of layers of the computing system while tightly coupling the design methodology to the physical requirements. (The chapter is based on the contributions of the special session Designing Reliable Cyber-Physical Systems of the Forum on Specification and Design Languages (FDL) 2016.)

Keywords

Adaptive test strategy generation Automatic test case generation Checker minimization Checker qualification Concurrent online checkers Counterexample-guided inductive synthesis CPS Cross-layered fault management Cyber-physical systems Dependable CPSoC Embedded systems Fault classification Fault management infrastructure Fault tolerance Gating-aware error injection Gradual degradation Health monitors Heterogeneous IDDQ IEEE 1687 Many-core NBTI aging Parameter synthesis Reliability analysis Resource management software Run-time resource mapping Satisfiability modulo theories System-on-chip 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the European Union (Horizon 2020 IMMORTAL project, grant no. 644905).

References

  1. 1.
    Abeni, L., & Buttazzo, G. (2004). Resource reservation in dynamic real-time systems. Real-Time System, 27(2), 123–167.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahonen, T., ter Braak, T. D., Burgess, S. T., Geißler, R., Heysters, P. M., Hurskainen, H., et al. (2011). CRISP: Cutting edge reconfigurable ICs for stream processing. In Reconfigurable computing: From FPGAs to hardware/software codesign (pp. 211–237). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aleksandrowicz, G., Arbel, E., Bloem, R., ter Braak, T. D., Devadze, S., Fey, G., et al. (2016). Designing reliable cyber-physical systems – Overview associated to the special session at FDL’16. In 2016 Forum on Specification and Design Languages, FDL 2016, Bremen, Germany, September 14–16, 2016 (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ali, G., Badawy, A., & Kerkhoff, H. G. (2016). On-line management of temperature health monitors using the IEEE 1687 standard. In TESTA (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., & Yannakakis, M. (1995). Distinguishing tests for nondeterministic and probabilistic machines. In STOC (pp. 363–372).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbel, E., Barak, E., Hoppe, B., Koyfman, S., Krautz, U., & Moran, S. (2016). Gating aware error injection. In HVC (pp. 34–48).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arbel, E., Koyfman, S., Kudva, P., & Moran, S. (2014). Automated detection and verification of parity-protected memory elements. In ICCAD (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett, C. W., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S. A., & Tinelli, C. (2009). Satisfiability modulo theories. In Handbook of satisfiability (pp. 825–885). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., & Schallhart, C. (2011). Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. TOSEM, 20(4), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloem, R., Könighofer, R., Pill, I., & Röck, F. (2016). Synthesizing adaptive test strategies from temporal logic specifications. In FMCAD (pp. 17–24).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bogomolov, S., Schilling, C., Bartocci, E., Batt, G., Kong, H., & Grosu, R. (2015). Abstraction-based parameter synthesis for multiaffine systems. In HVC (pp. 19–35).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Mover, S., & Tonetta, S. (2013). Parameter synthesis with IC3. In FMCAD (pp. 165–168).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke, E. M., & Emerson, E. A. (1981). Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In LOP (pp. 52–71).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., & Montali, M. (2014). Reasoning on LTL on finite traces: Insensitivity to infiniteness. In AAAI (pp. 1027–1033).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Giacomo, G., & Vardi, M. Y. (2013). Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In IJCAI.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frehse, S., Fey, G., Arbel, E., Yorav, K., & Drechsler, R. (2012). Complete and effective robustness checking by means of interpolation. In FMCAD (pp. 82–90).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frehse, G., Jha, S. K., & Krogh, B. H. (2008). A counterexample-guided approach to parameter synthesis for linear hybrid automata. In HSCC (pp. 187–200).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fraser, G., Wotawa, F., & Ammann, P. (2009). Issues in using model checkers for test case generation. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(9), 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraser, G., Wotawa, F., & Ammann, P. (2009). Testing with model checkers: A survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 19(3), 215–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Havelund, K., & Rosu, G. (2001). Monitoring programs using rewriting. In ASE (pp. 135–143).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hierons, R. M. (2006). Applying adaptive test cases to nondeterministic implementations. Information Processing Letters, 98(2), 56–60.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holcomb, D. E., Li, W., & Seshia, S. A. (2009). Design as you see FIT: System-level soft error analysis of sequential circuits. In DATE (pp. 785–790).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hölzenspies, P. K. F., ter Braak, T. D., Kuper, J., Smit, G. J. M., & Hurink, J. (2010). Run-time spatial mapping of streaming applications to heterogeneous multi-processor systems. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 38(1), 68–83.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibrahim, A. M. Y., & Kerkhoff, H. G. (2016). An IJTAG-compatible I DDT embedded instrument for health monitoring and prognostics. In ITC, Poster Session.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jia, Y., & Harman, M. (2011). An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(5), 649–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan, M. A. (2014). On Improving Dependability of Analog and Mixed-Signal SoCs: A System-Level Approach Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krautz, U., Pflanz, M., Jacobi, C., Tast, H.-W., Weber, K., & Vierhaus, H. T. (2006). Evaluating coverage of error detection logic for soft errors using formal methods. In DATE (pp. 176–181).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krishnaswamy, S., Plaza, S., Markov, I. L., & Hayes, J. P. (2009). Signature-based SER analysis and design of logic circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, 28(1), 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kupferman, O., & Vardi, M. Y. (1997). Synthesis with incomplete information. In ICTL (pp. 91–106).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, E. A., & Seshia, S. A. (2015) Introduction to embedded systems: A Cyber-physical systems approach (2nd ed.). LeeSeshia.orgzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leveugle, R., Calvez, A., Maistri, P., & Vanhauwaert, P. (2009). Statistical fault injection: Quantified error and confidence. In DATE (pp. 502–506).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maniatakos, M., & Makris, Y. (2010). Workload-driven selective hardening of control state elements in modern microprocessors. In VTS (pp. 159–164).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mukherjee, S. S., Weaver, C. T., Emer, J. S., Reinhardt, S. K., & Austin, T. M. (2003). A systematic methodology to compute the architectural vulnerability factors for a high-performance microprocessor. In MICRO (pp. 29–42).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nachmanson, L., Veanes, M., Schulte, W., Tillmann, N., & Grieskamp, W. (2004). Optimal strategies for testing nondeterministic systems. In ISSTA (pp. 55–64).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nicolaidis, M. (2010). Design techniques for soft-error mitigation. In ICICDT (pp. 208–214).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Offutt, A. J. (1992). Investigations of the software testing coupling effect. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pnueli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In FOCS (pp. 46–57).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pnueli, A., & Rosner, R. (1989). On the synthesis of a reactive module. In POPL (pp. 179–190).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Queille, J.-P., & Sifakis, J. (1982). Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In PROGRAM (pp. 337–351).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Riener, H., Könighofer, R., Fey, G., & Bloem, R. (2016). SMT-based CPS parameter synthesis. In ARCH@CPSWeek (pp. 126–133).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saltarelli, P., Niazmand, B., Hariharan, R., Raik, J., Jervan, G., & Hollstein, T. (2015). Automated minimization of concurrent online checkers for network-on-chips. In ReCoSoC (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Saltarelli, P., Niazmand, B., Raik, J., Govind, V., Hollstein, T., Jervan, G., et al. (2015). A framework for combining concurrent checking and on-line embedded test for low-latency fault detection in NoC routers. In NOCS (pp. 6:1–6:8).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seshia, S. A., Li, W., & Mitra, S. (2007). Verification-guided soft error resilience. In DATE (pp. 1442–1447).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Solar-Lezama, A. (2013). Program sketching. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 15(5–6), 475–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sourdis, I., Strydis, C., Armato, A., Bouganis, C.-S., Falsafi, B., Gaydadjiev, G. N., et al. (2013). DeSyRe: On-demand system reliability. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 37(8-C), 981–1001.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Steffens, L., Fohler, G., Lipari, G., & Buttazzo, G. (2003). Resource reservation in real-time operating systems – a joint industrial and academic position. In ARTOSS (pp. 25–30).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ter Braak, T. D. (2014). Using guided local search for adaptive resource re-servation in large-scale embedded systems. In DATE (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    ter Braak, T. D. (2016). Run-Time Mapping: Dynamic Resource Allocation in Embedded Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ter Braak, T. D., Toersche, H. A., Kokkeler, A. B. J., & Smit, G. J. M. (2011). Adaptive resource allocation for streaming applications. In SAMOS (pp. 388–395).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wan, J., & Kerkhoff, H. G. (2015). Embedded instruments for enhancing dependability of analogue and mixed-signal IPs. In NEWCAS (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wan, J., Kerkhoff, H. G., & Bisschop, J. (2016). Simulating NBTI degradation in arbitrary stressed analog/mixed-signal environments. IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, 15(2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yannakakis, M. (2004). Testing, optimizaton, and games. In LICS (pp. 78–88).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zambrano, A. C., & Kerkhoff, H. G. (2015). Fault-tolerant system for catastrophic faults in AMR sensors. In IOLTS (pp. 65–70).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhao, Y., & Kerkhoff, H. G. (2016). A genetic algorithm based remaining lifetime prediction for a VLIW processor employing path delay and IDDX testing. In DTIS (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gadi Aleksandrowicz
    • 1
  • Eli Arbel
    • 1
  • Roderick Bloem
    • 2
  • Timon D. ter Braak
    • 3
  • Sergei Devadze
    • 4
  • Goerschwin Fey
    • 5
  • Maksim Jenihhin
    • 6
  • Artur Jutman
    • 4
  • Hans G. Kerkhoff
    • 7
  • Robert Könighofer
    • 2
  • Shlomit Koyfman
    • 1
  • Jan Malburg
    • 5
  • Shiri Moran
    • 1
  • Jaan Raik
    • 6
  • Gerard Rauwerda
    • 3
  • Heinz Riener
    • 5
  • Franz Röck
    • 2
  • Konstantin Shibin
    • 4
  • Kim Sunesen
    • 3
  • Jinbo Wan
    • 7
  • Yong Zhao
    • 7
  1. 1.IBM Research LabHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Graz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  3. 3.Recore SystemsEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Testonica LabTallinnEstonia
  5. 5.German Aerospace CenterBremenGermany
  6. 6.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  7. 7.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations