Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Integrating Graceful Degradation and Recovery through Requirement-driven Adaptation (2401.09678v2)

Published 18 Jan 2024 in cs.SE, cs.FL, cs.LO, cs.SY, and eess.SY

Abstract: Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are subject to environmental uncertainties such as adverse operating conditions, malicious attacks, and hardware degradation. These uncertainties may lead to failures that put the system in a sub-optimal or unsafe state. Systems that are resilient to such uncertainties rely on two types of operations: (1) graceful degradation, to ensure that the system maintains an acceptable level of safety during unexpected environmental conditions and (2) recovery, to facilitate the resumption of normal system functions. Typically, mechanisms for degradation and recovery are developed independently from each other, and later integrated into a system, requiring the designer to develop an additional, ad-hoc logic for activating and coordinating between the two operations. In this paper, we propose a self-adaptation approach for improving system resiliency through automated triggering and coordination of graceful degradation and recovery. The key idea behind our approach is to treat degradation and recovery as requirement-driven adaptation tasks: Degradation can be thought of as temporarily weakening original (i.e., ideal) system requirements to be achieved by the system, and recovery as strengthening the weakened requirements when the environment returns within an expected operating boundary. Furthermore, by treating weakening and strengthening as dual operations, we argue that a single requirement-based adaptation method is sufficient to enable coordination between degradation and recovery. Given system requirements specified in signal temporal logic (STL), we propose a run-time adaptation framework that performs degradation and recovery in response to environmental changes. We describe a prototype implementation of our framework and demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach using a case study in unmanned underwater vehicles.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. O. Maler and D. Nickovic, “Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals,” in Formal Techniques, Modelling and Analysis of Timed and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Y. Lakhnech and S. Yovine, Eds.   Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 152–166.
  2. J. Bermejo-Alonso, C. Hernández, and R. Sanz, “Model-based engineering of autonomous systems using ontologies and metamodels,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), 2016, pp. 1–8.
  3. G. R. Silva, J. Päßler, J. Zwanepol, E. Alberts, S. L. T. Tarifa, I. Gerostathopoulos, E. B. Johnsen, and C. H. Corbato, “Suave: An exemplar for self-adaptive underwater vehicles,” 2023.
  4. E. Asarin, A. Donzé, O. Maler, and D. Nickovic, “Parametric identification of temporal properties,” in Runtime Verification, S. Khurshid and K. Sen, Eds.   Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 147–160.
  5. A. Pnueli, “The temporal logic of programs,” in 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977, 1977, pp. 46–57.
  6. D. A. Rimmi Anand and V. Kumar, “A comparative analysis of optimization solvers,” Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 623–635, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2017.1395182
  7. N. Nethercote, P. J. Stuckey, R. Becket, S. Brand, G. J. Duck, and G. Tack, “Minizinc: Towards a standard cp modelling language,” in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2007, C. Bessière, Ed.   Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 529–543.
  8. J. Ploeg, E. Semsar-Kazerooni, G. Lijster, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Graceful degradation of cooperative adaptive cruise control,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 488–497, 2015.
  9. S. Chu, E. Shedden, C. Zhang, R. Meira-Góes, G. A. Moreno, D. Garlan, and E. Kang, “Runtime resolution of feature interactions through adaptive requirement weakening,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 18th Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2023, pp. 115–125.
  10. M. Florins and J. Vanderdonckt, “Graceful degradation of user interfaces as a design method for multiplatform systems,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ser. IUI ’04.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2004, p. 140–147. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/964442.964469
  11. T. Buckworth, D. Alrajeh, J. Kramer, and S. Uchitel, “Adapting specifications for reactive controllers,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 18th Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2023, pp. 1–12.
  12. H. Chen, S. A. Smolka, N. Paoletti, and S. Lin, “An stl-based approach to resilient control for cyber-physical systems,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02794
  13. F. Kong, M. Xu, J. Weimer, O. Sokolsky, and I. Lee, “Cyber-physical system checkpointing and recovery,” in 2018 ACM/IEEE 9th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), 2018, pp. 22–31.
  14. P. Venkitakrishnan, “Rollback and recovery mechanisms in distributed systems,” 2002. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15179795
  15. P. Jagtap, F. Abdi, M. Rungger, M. Zamani, and M. Caccamo, “Software fault tolerance for cyber-physical systems via full system restart,” ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst., vol. 4, no. 4, aug 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3407183
  16. F. A. T. Abad, R. Mancuso, S. Bak, O. Dantsker, and M. Caccamo, “Reset-based recovery for real-time cyber-physical systems with temporal safety constraints,” in 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2016, pp. 1–8.
  17. P. Arcaini, E. Riccobene, and P. Scandurra, “Modeling and analyzing mape-k feedback loops for self-adaptation,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 10th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, 2015, pp. 13–23.
  18. M. Shaw, “”self-healing”: Softening precision to avoid brittleness: Position paper for woss ’02: Workshop on self-healing systems,” in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Self-Healing Systems, ser. WOSS ’02.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2002, p. 111–114. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/582128.582152
  19. J. Reich, D. Hillen, J. Frey, N. Laxman, T. Ogata, D. Di Paola, S. Otsuka, and N. Watanabe, “Concept and metamodel to support cross-domain safety analysis for odd expansion of autonomous systems,” in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security: 42nd International Conference, SAFECOMP 2023, Toulouse, France, September 20–22, 2023, Proceedings.   Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2023, p. 165–178. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40923-3_13
  20. [Online]. Available: https://www.asam.net/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=4544&token=1260ce1c4f0afdbe18261f7137c689b1d9c27576
  21. A. T. Buyukkocak and D. Aksaray, “Temporal relaxation of signal temporal logic specifications for resilient control synthesis,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 2890–2896.
  22. J. Whittle, P. Sawyer, N. Bencomo, B. Cheng, and J.-M. Bruel, “Relax: A language to address uncertainty in self-adaptive systems requirement,” Requir. Eng., vol. 15, pp. 177–196, 06 2010.
  23. R. Wohlrab, R. Meira-góes, and M. Vierhauser, “Run-time adaptation of quality attributes for automated planning,” in 2022 International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2022, pp. 98–105.
  24. N. Li, M. Zhang, J. Li, E. Kang, and K. Tei, “Preference adaptation: user satisfaction is all you need!” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 18th Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2023, pp. 133–144.
  25. A. Bennaceur, A. Zisman, C. McCormick, D. Barthaud, and B. Nuseibeh, “Won’t take no for an answer: Resource-driven requirements adaptation,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 14th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), 2019, pp. 77–88.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com