Upload
ivan-ruchkin
View
266
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ivan Ruchkin, Selva Samuel, Bradley Schmerl, Amanda Rico, and David Garlan
Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University
2
3
CPS operate in uncertain contexts
Need to adapt to unanticipated situations
4
System & environment under adaptation
Adaptation with models
Phenomena
5
System & environment under adaptation
Adaptation with physical models
Physical phenomena
6
NUC(computer)
Kinect(sensor)
Base(actuator & battery)
7
8
Abstractions of physical objects and interactions
Beyond simple discrete models
Objects may be in the system, in the environment, or on the border
Example: power model for TurtleBot
How much does each task consume?
How much power is left given current voltage?
How long does it take to charge?
9
Software models guide state-of-the-art adaptive systems
Physical models are often implicit or assumed
In CPS, we need both software and physical models!
10
1. Selecting modeling formalism
2. Obtaining physical models
3. Using physical models in adaptation
11
1. Selecting modeling formalism
2. Obtaining physical models
3. Using physical models in adaptation
12
Many formalisms and tools are available for modeling CPS
Differential equations, signal flow graphs, automata
Position: no single formalism is enough to model adaptive CPS; we need to embrace their multiplicity
13
Evaluate individual formalisms Expressiveness▪ Linear/non-linear, continuous/discrete, classes of
functions (polynomials, transcendental functions, etc.)
Types of analyses supported▪ Trade-off between expressiveness and computing cost
Engineering expertise▪ Novices: higher effort and lower quality
We need approaches to integrate formalisms! Difficult problem, outside of talk’s scope
14
We chose a linear real-valued regression model
Continuous changes in parameters
Easily embeddable into other models
15
P(v, t) = Av + Bt + C
15time (s)
po
wer
(wh
)
1. Selecting modeling formalism
2. Obtaining physical models
3. Using physical models in adaptation
16
Goal: maximize value of each model
Analytical power: strength of predictions and explanations
Fragility: amount of rework to accommodate future changes
Computational cost: amount of processing needed for analysis
Position: the way we build physical models affects their value. We need more guidance!
17
Theory-driven
Physical theory dictates first principles
Calibrate with data
18
Data-driven
Collect data first
Then create abstractions from it
time (s)
po
wer
(wh
)
19
We chose to use data-driven approach
Low expertise with theory-driven models
Ok with low-precision far-horizon predictions
The model is fragile: hard to change
1. Selecting modeling formalism
2. Obtaining physical models
3. Using physical models in adaptation
20
Software models in adaptation are used for:
State estimation and prediction
Triggering adaptive changes
Choosing adaptive strategy
+ Continuous improvement of models themselves
Position: physical models should also be treated as first-class entities in adaptation
21
Clear representation
Either separate models or explicit embedding
Easier change and reuse
Coordinated use with cyber models
Estimation, prediction, choice
Models themselves should be adapted
Model value & cost should be the guiding factors
Need to reason about model value at run time!
22
Physical models in adaptive CPS are important and difficult to build
23
Challenge Position
Selecting modeling formalism
Embrace multiplicity; use formalisms based on expressiveness, analyses, and expertise.
Obtaining physical models Model value should the guiding factor. More guidance is needed to connect model- building and model value.
Using physical models in adaptation
Physical models should be treated as first-class entities and adapted based on their value at run time.