Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

EURECA: epistemic uncertainty classification scheme for runtime information exchange in collaborative system groups

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
SICS Software-Intensive Cyber-Physical Systems

Abstract

Collaborative embedded systems (CES) typically operate in highly dynamic contexts that cannot be completely predicted during design time. These systems are subject to a wide range of uncertainties occurring at runtime, which can be distinguished in aleatory or epistemic. While aleatory uncertainty refers to stochasticity that is present in natural or physical processes and systems, epistemic uncertainty refers to the knowledge that is available to the system, for example, in the form of an ontology, being insufficient for the functionalities that require certain knowledge. Even though both of these two kinds of uncertainties are relevant for CES, epistemic uncertainties are especially important, since forming collaborative system groups requires a structured exchange of information. In the autonomous driving domain for instance, the information exchange between different CES of different vehicles may be related to own or environmental behavior, goals or functionalities. By today, the systematic identification of epistemic uncertainties sourced in the information exchange is insufficiently explored, as only some specialized classifications for uncertainties in the area of self-adaptive systems exist. This paper contributes an epistemic uncertainty classification scheme for runtime information exchange (EURECA) in collaborative system groups. By using this classification scheme, it is possible to identify the relevant epistemic sources of uncertainties for a CES during requirements engineering.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Manfred Broy. Engineering cyber-physical systems - challenges and foundations. In Complex Systems Design and Management, pages 1–13. Springer, 2013

  2. Jia D, Lu K, Wang J, Zhang X, Shen X (2016) A survey on platoon-based vehicular cyber-physical systems. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 18(1):263–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MB, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process-a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22(11):1543–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Esfahani N, Malek S (2013) Uncertainty in self-adaptive software systems. In: de Lemos R, Giese H, Müller HA, Shaw M (eds) Software engineering for self-adaptive systems II. Springer, pp 214–238

  6. Ramirez AJ, Jensen AC, Cheng BH (2012) A taxonomy of uncertainty for dynamically adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on software engineering for adaptive and self-managing systems. IEEE Press, pp 99–108

  7. Perez-Palacin D, Mirandola R (2014) Uncertainties in the modeling of self-adaptive systems: a taxonomy and an example of availability evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/SPEC international conference on performance engineering. ACM, pp 3–14

  8. Mahdavi-Hezavehi S, Avgeriou P, Weyns D (2017) A classification framework of uncertainty in architecture-based self-adaptive systems with multiple quality requirements. In: Managing trade-offs in adaptable software architectures. Elsevier, pp 45–77

  9. Cámara J et al (2017) Uncertainty in self-adaptive systems categories, management, and perspectives. Technical Report Collection, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

  10. Zhang M, Selic B, Ali S, Yue T, Okariz O, Norgren R (2016) Understanding uncertainty in cyber-physical systems: a conceptual model. In: European conference on modelling foundations and applications. Springer, pp 247–264

  11. Cailliau A, van Lamsweerde A (2015) Handling knowledge uncertainty in risk-based requirements engineering. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, pp 106–115

  12. Lombardi AM (2017) The epistemic and aleatory uncertainties of the etas-type models: an application to the central Italy seismicity. Sci Rep 7(1):11812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Welsh K, Sawyer P (2010) Understanding the scope of uncertainty in dynamically adaptive systems. In: International working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, pp 2–16

  15. Garlan D (2010) Software engineering in an uncertain world. In: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on future of software engineering research. ACM, pp 125–128

  16. Liang K-Y, Mårtensson J, Johansson KH (2016) Heavy-duty vehicle platoon formation for fuel efficiency. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(4):1051–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daun M, Brings J, Weyer T, Tenbergen B (2016) Fostering concurrent engineering of cyber-physical systems a proposal for an ontological context framework. In: 2016 3rd international workshop on emerging ideas and trends in engineering of cyber-physical systems (EITEC). IEEE, pp 5–10

  18. Petrovska A, Grigoleit F (2018) Towards context modeling for dynamic collaborative embedded systems in open context. MRC@ IJCAI

  19. Brings J, Daun M, Hildebrandt C, Törsleff S (2018) An ontological context modeling framework for coping with the dynamic contexts of cyber-physical systems. In: MODELSWARD, pp 396–403

  20. Hsu A, Sachs S, Eskafi F, Varaiya (1991) The design of platoon maneuvers for ivhs. In: 1991 american control conference, pp 2545–2550

  21. Dey KC, Yan L, Wang X, Wang Y, Shen H, Chowdhury M, Yu L, Qiu C, Soundararaj V (2016) A review of communication, driver characteristics, and controls aspects of cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC). IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(2):491–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Segata M, Bloessl B, Joerer S, Dressler F, Cigno RL (2014) Supporting platooning maneuvers through ivc: an initial protocol analysis for the join maneuver. In: 2014 11th annual conference on wireless on-demand network systems and services (WONS), pp 130–137

  23. Mallozzi P, Sciancalepore M, Pelliccione P (2016) Formal verification of the on-the-fly vehicle platooning protocol. In: Crnkovic I, Troubitsyna E (eds) Software engineering for resilient systems. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Cioroaica E, Kuhn T, Bauer T (2018) Prototyping automotive smart ecosystems. In: 2018 48th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks workshops (DSN-W). IEEE

  25. Popp KM (2010) Goals of software vendors for partner ecosystems–a practitioner s view. In: International conference of software business. Springer, pp 181–186

  26. Khan MA, Boloni L (2005) Convoy driving through ad-hoc coalition formation. In: 11th IEEE real time and embedded technology and applications symposium, pp 98–105

  27. Toy C, Leung K, Alvarez L, Horowitz R (2002) Emergency vehicle maneuvers and control laws for automated highway systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 3(2):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Aramrattana M, Larsson T, Jansson J, Englund C (2015) Dimensions of cooperative driving, its and automation. In: 2015 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 144–149

  29. Ebers S, Hellbck H, Pfisterer D, Fischer S (2013) Short paper: collaboration between vanet applications based on open standards. In: 2013 IEEE vehicular networking conference, pp 174–177

  30. Liu X, Goldsmith A, Mahal SS, Hedrick JK (2001) Effects of communication delay on string stability in vehicle platoons. In: 2001 IEEE intelligent transportation systems proceedings, pp 625–630

  31. Bandyszak T, Kuhs P, Kleinblotekamp J, Daun M (2018) On the use of orthogonal context uncertainty models in the engineering of collaborative embedded systems. In: Schaefer I, Cleophas L, Felderer M (eds) Joint proceedings of the workshops at Modellierung 2018 co-located with Modellierung 2018, volume 2060 of CEUR workshop proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, pp 121–130

  32. Barrachina J, Garrido P, Fogue M, Martinez FJ, Cano JC, Calafate CT, Manzoni P (2012) Caova: a car accident ontology for VANETs. In: 2012 IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC), pp 1864–1869

  33. Barrachina J, Garrido P, Fogue M, Martinez FJ, Cano J-C, Calafate CT, Manzoni P (2012) VEACON: a vehicular accident ontology designed to improve safety on the roads. J Netw Comput Appl 35(6):1891–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ruta M, Scioscia F, Gramegna F, Ieva S, Di Sciascio E, De Vera RP (2018) A knowledge fusion approach for context awareness in vehicular networks. IEEE Internet Things J 5(4):2407–2419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gregor D, Toral SL, Ariza T, Barrero F, Gregor R, Rodas J, Arzamendia M (2016) A methodology for structured ontology construction applied to intelligent transportation systems. Comput Stand Interfaces 47:108–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bosch J, Olsson HH (2018) Ecosystem traps and where to find them. J Softw Evol Process 30:e1961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Staab S, Studer R (2010) Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Patel-Schneider P, Nardi D (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Daun M, Weyer T, Pohl K (2014) Validating the functional design of embedded systems against stakeholder intentions. In: 2014 2nd international conference on model-driven engineering and software development (MODELSWARD). IEEE, pp 333–339

  41. Hildebrandt C, Törsleff S, Caesar B, Fay A (2018) Ontology building for cyber-physical systems: a domain expert-centric approach. In: 2018 14th IEEE conference on automation science and engineering (CASE 2018)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The contribution presented in this paper was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under Grant Number 01IS16043 Collaborative Embedded Systems (CrESt).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Automation Technology, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043, Hamburg, Germany

    Constantin Hildebrandt

  2. paluno – The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Gerlingstr. 16, 45127, Essen, Germany

    Torsten Bandyszak

  3. Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748, Garching bei München, Germany

    Ana Petrovska

  4. Software Engineering: Dependability, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Gottlieb-Daimler-Str., 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Nishanth Laxman

  5. Fraunhofer IESE, Fraunhofer Platz 1, 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Emilia Cioroaica

  6. Institute of Automation Technology, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043, Hamburg, Germany

    Sebastian Törsleff

Authors
  1. Constantin Hildebrandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Bandyszak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Petrovska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nishanth Laxman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emilia Cioroaica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastian Törsleff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantin Hildebrandt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hildebrandt, C., Bandyszak, T., Petrovska, A. et al. EURECA: epistemic uncertainty classification scheme for runtime information exchange in collaborative system groups. SICS Softw.-Inensiv. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 34, 177–190 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-019-00422-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-019-00422-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation