Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
1
Integration Beyond Components and
Models: Directions and Challenges
Ivan Ruchkin
4th
Architecture-Centric Virtual Integr...
2
Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com
3
Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com
Imagecredit:technologynewhere.wordpress.com
4
Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com
Imagecredit:technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
5
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
6
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
● But: Heterogeneity of system elements
7
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
● But: Heterogeneity of system elements
● But: Growing complexity and scale
8
● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
● But: Heterogeneity of system elements
● But: Growing complexity and scale
● Dan...
9
Integration
Bringing together elements of a system
to make them operate cohesively.
Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
10
Integration
● What have we been doing?
– Integration for components; models.
Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
11
Integration
● What have we been doing?
– Integration for components; models.
● What is coming up?
– Integration for mod...
12
Component IntegrationImagecredit:
technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
13
Component IntegrationImagecredit:
technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
14
Component IntegrationImagecredit:
technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
15
Component IntegrationImagecredit:
technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
16
Component IntegrationImagecredit:
technologynewhere.wordpress.com
Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
17
Component Integration
● Interface and composition
– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
[1] Blochwitz et al. Functio...
18
Component Integration
● Interface and composition
– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs....
19
Component Integration
● Interface and composition
– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs....
20
Component Integration
● Interface and composition
– E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2]
– Tradeoff: universality vs....
21
Model Integration
22
Model Integration
23
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
24
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
2. Relation
25
Model Integration
1. Abstraction
2. Relation
Structural Behavioral
...
26
● On the structural side:
– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
Model Integration
[4] Passarini et al. ...
27
● On the structural side:
– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
● On the behavioral side:
– Heterogeneo...
28
● On the structural side:
– Metamodel composition [4]
– Architectural views [5]
● On the behavioral side:
– Heterogeneo...
29
Integration
● What have we been doing?
– Integration for components; models.
● What is coming up?
– Integration for mod...
30
Modeling Method Integration
31
Modeling Method Integration
32
Modeling Method Integration
Focus: analysis/transformation procedures
33
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques:
– Dependency management [8]
[8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in ...
34
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques:
– Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
[8] A. Qamar. Model...
35
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques:
– Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
● How can evolution...
36
Modeling Method Integration
● Techniques:
– Dependency management [8]
– Assumption verification [9]
● How can evolution...
37
Data Integration
38
Data Integration
Imagecredit:DeshengZhang
39
Data Integration
Focus: heterogeneous datasets
from CPS elements
Imagecredit:DeshengZhang
40
Data Integration
● How can data incompleteness in CPS design
be detected and compensated for?
41
Data Integration
● How can data incompleteness in CPS design
be detected and compensated for?
● How can model-based and...
42
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents
– “Human-in-the-loop”
43
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents
– “Human-in-the-loop”
Imagecredit:historiaviation.com
44
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents
– “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate
comprehens...
45
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents
– “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate
comprehens...
46
Integration with Humans
● Humans as external agents
– “Human-in-the-loop”
● How can humans be given adequate
comprehens...
47
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers
48
Integration with Humans
Computer Science Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
● Humans as engineers
49
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers
● How do the inherent biases of each CPS
discipline affect design and dev...
50
Integration with Humans
● Humans as engineers
● How do the inherent biases of each CPS
discipline affect design and dev...
51
Summary
● In CPS integration overcomes heterogeneity and complexity.
● Foundations of integration:
– Components
– Model...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Integration Beyond Components and Models: Research Challenges and Directions

341 views

Published on

A talk given at ACVI 2016.

Abstract:
Recent research in embedded and cyber-physical systems has developed theories and tools for integration of heterogeneous components and models. These efforts, although important, are insufficient for high-quality and error-free systems integration since inconsistencies between system elements may stem from factors not directly represented in models (e.g., analysis tools and expert disagreements). Therefore, we need to broaden our perspective on integration, and devise approaches in three novel directions of integration: modeling methods, data sets, and humans. This paper summarizes the latest advances, and discusses those directions and associated challenges in integration for cyber-physical systems.

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integration Beyond Components and Models: Research Challenges and Directions

  1. 1. 1 Integration Beyond Components and Models: Directions and Challenges Ivan Ruchkin 4th Architecture-Centric Virtual Integration Workshop WICSA/CompArch 2016 Venice, Italy April 5, 2016
  2. 2. 2 Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com
  3. 3. 3 Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com Imagecredit:technologynewhere.wordpress.com
  4. 4. 4 Imagecredit:bankinfosecurity.com Imagecredit:technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  5. 5. 5 ● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world
  6. 6. 6 ● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world ● But: Heterogeneity of system elements
  7. 7. 7 ● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world ● But: Heterogeneity of system elements ● But: Growing complexity and scale
  8. 8. 8 ● Goal: Autonomy in the physical world ● But: Heterogeneity of system elements ● But: Growing complexity and scale ● Danger: interactions fail → systems fail
  9. 9. 9 Integration Bringing together elements of a system to make them operate cohesively. Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
  10. 10. 10 Integration ● What have we been doing? – Integration for components; models. Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
  11. 11. 11 Integration ● What have we been doing? – Integration for components; models. ● What is coming up? – Integration for modeling methods; data; humans. Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
  12. 12. 12 Component IntegrationImagecredit: technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  13. 13. 13 Component IntegrationImagecredit: technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  14. 14. 14 Component IntegrationImagecredit: technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  15. 15. 15 Component IntegrationImagecredit: technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  16. 16. 16 Component IntegrationImagecredit: technologynewhere.wordpress.com Image credit: Ajinkya Bhave
  17. 17. 17 Component Integration ● Interface and composition – E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2] [1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012. [2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state- based component implementations, STTT 2013.
  18. 18. 18 Component Integration ● Interface and composition – E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2] – Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability [1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012. [2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state- based component implementations, STTT 2013.
  19. 19. 19 Component Integration ● Interface and composition – E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2] – Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability ● Compositional reasoning – Contract-based design [3] [1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012. [2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state- based component implementations, STTT 2013. [3] Benveniste et al. Contracts for Systems Design: Theory, Research Report, 2015.
  20. 20. 20 Component Integration ● Interface and composition – E.g., FMI [1], automata interfaces [2] – Tradeoff: universality vs. tractability ● Compositional reasoning – Contract-based design [3] ● Shortcoming: cross-cutting quality concerns [1] Blochwitz et al. Functional Mockup Interface 2.0: The Standard for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. 2012. [2] Lampka et al. Component-based system design: analytic real-time interfaces for state- based component implementations, STTT 2013. [3] Benveniste et al. Contracts for Systems Design: Theory, Research Report, 2015.
  21. 21. 21 Model Integration
  22. 22. 22 Model Integration
  23. 23. 23 Model Integration 1. Abstraction
  24. 24. 24 Model Integration 1. Abstraction 2. Relation
  25. 25. 25 Model Integration 1. Abstraction 2. Relation Structural Behavioral ...
  26. 26. 26 ● On the structural side: – Metamodel composition [4] – Architectural views [5] Model Integration [4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011.
  27. 27. 27 ● On the structural side: – Metamodel composition [4] – Architectural views [5] ● On the behavioral side: – Heterogeneous simulation [6] – Behavior relations [7] Model Integration [4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011. [6] Eker et al. Taming heterogeneity - the Ptolemy approach, Proc. of IEEE 20013. [7] Rajhans et al. Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical Systems Architectures, TAC 2014.
  28. 28. 28 ● On the structural side: – Metamodel composition [4] – Architectural views [5] ● On the behavioral side: – Heterogeneous simulation [6] – Behavior relations [7] ● Shortcoming: fragility in the face of change Model Integration [4] Passarini et al. Cyber-physical systems design: transition from functional to architectural models, DAES 2015. [5] Bhave et al. View Consistency in Architectures for Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS 2011. [6] Eker et al. Taming heterogeneity - the Ptolemy approach, Proc. of IEEE 20013. [7] Rajhans et al. Supporting Heterogeneity in Cyber-Physical Systems Architectures, TAC 2014.
  29. 29. 29 Integration ● What have we been doing? – Integration for components; models. ● What is coming up? – Integration for modeling methods; data; humans. Imagecredit:chevinfleet.com
  30. 30. 30 Modeling Method Integration
  31. 31. 31 Modeling Method Integration
  32. 32. 32 Modeling Method Integration Focus: analysis/transformation procedures
  33. 33. 33 Modeling Method Integration ● Techniques: – Dependency management [8] [8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013.
  34. 34. 34 Modeling Method Integration ● Techniques: – Dependency management [8] – Assumption verification [9] [8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013. [9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
  35. 35. 35 Modeling Method Integration ● Techniques: – Dependency management [8] – Assumption verification [9] ● How can evolution of sets of heterogeneous CPS models be systematically supported? [8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013. [9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
  36. 36. 36 Modeling Method Integration ● Techniques: – Dependency management [8] – Assumption verification [9] ● How can evolution of sets of heterogeneous CPS models be systematically supported? ● How can tools, processes, and methods for CPS modeling be integrated? [8] A. Qamar. Model and Dependency Management in Mechatronic Design, PhD Thesis, KTH 2013. [9] Ruchkin et al. Contract-based Integration of Cyber-physical Analyses, EMSOFT 2014.
  37. 37. 37 Data Integration
  38. 38. 38 Data Integration Imagecredit:DeshengZhang
  39. 39. 39 Data Integration Focus: heterogeneous datasets from CPS elements Imagecredit:DeshengZhang
  40. 40. 40 Data Integration ● How can data incompleteness in CPS design be detected and compensated for?
  41. 41. 41 Data Integration ● How can data incompleteness in CPS design be detected and compensated for? ● How can model-based and data-centric approaches to system design be (non-trivially) synergized?
  42. 42. 42 Integration with Humans ● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop”
  43. 43. 43 Integration with Humans ● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop” Imagecredit:historiaviation.com
  44. 44. 44 Integration with Humans ● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop” ● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems?
  45. 45. 45 Integration with Humans ● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop” ● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems? ● How can competing theories of human cognition be reconciled in practical human models?
  46. 46. 46 Integration with Humans ● Humans as external agents – “Human-in-the-loop” ● How can humans be given adequate comprehension and control of complex systems? ● How can competing theories of human cognition be reconciled in practical human models? ● How can contextual fragility of human models be bridged?
  47. 47. 47 Integration with Humans ● Humans as engineers
  48. 48. 48 Integration with Humans Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering ● Humans as engineers
  49. 49. 49 Integration with Humans ● Humans as engineers ● How do the inherent biases of each CPS discipline affect design and development?
  50. 50. 50 Integration with Humans ● Humans as engineers ● How do the inherent biases of each CPS discipline affect design and development? ● What are the shared concepts, conflicts, and omissions at the boundaries of disciplines?
  51. 51. 51 Summary ● In CPS integration overcomes heterogeneity and complexity. ● Foundations of integration: – Components – Models ● Emerging directions of integration: – Modeling methods – Data – Humans ● Takeaway: let's broaden the horizons of integration!

×