skip to main content
10.1145/3576914.3587525acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Symbiotic CPS Design-Space Exploration through Iterated Optimization

Published:09 May 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cyber-physical systems (CPSs) are complex systems comprised of computational processes, communication networks, and elements interacting with the physical world. The design of the CPSs involves many domain-specific tools and design flows created by engineers with diverse domain knowledge. As the scale of the systems increases, the heterogeneity nature of CPS design prolongs the CPS design process, making exhaustive design-space exploration infeasible. The symbiotic design methodology, in which the designers interact with optimization tools during the design process, is therefore promising to facilitate the design process by performing design exploration in a properly restricted design space. We present a symbiotic design methodology, which explores the design space iteratively and optimizes the system by exploiting the collaboration between designers and tools. The optimization tools perform the design space exploration, while the human designers use their expertise to guide the exploration by restricting the design space. Experimental results based on a robot car configuration problem and an unmanned aerial vehicle design problem show that the methodology can efficiently and effectively discover unconventional designs while optimizing the design objectives.

References

  1. J. Bakakeu, J. Fuchs, T. Javied, M. Brossog, J. Franke, H. Klos, W. Eberlein, S. Tolksdorf, J. Peschke, and L. Jahn. 2018. Multi-Objective Design Space Exploration for the Integration of Advanced Analytics in Cyber-Physical Production Systems. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM). 1866–1873. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2018.8607483Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert Benveniste, Benoît Caillaud, Dejan Nickovic, Roberto Passerone, Jean-Baptiste Raclet, Philipp Reinkemeier, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Werner Damm, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Kim G. Larsen. 2018. Contracts for System Design. Foundations and Trends in Electronic Design Automation 12, 2-3 (2018), 124–400. https://doi.org/10.1561/1000000053Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. DARPA [n. d.]. Symbiotic Design for Cyber Physical Systems. https://www.darpa.mil/program/symbiotic-design-for-cyber-physical-systems. Accessed: 2022-05-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Patricia Derler, Edward A. Lee, Stavros Tripakis, and Martin Törngren. 2013. Cyber-Physical System Design Contracts. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (ICCPS ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1145/2502524.2502540Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John Finn, Pierluigi Nuzzo, and Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2015. A mixed discrete-continuous optimization scheme for Cyber-Physical System architecture exploration. In 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD). 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAD.2015.7372573Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John Fitzgerald, Carl Gamble, Richard Payne, and Benjamin Lam. 2017. Exploring the Cyber-Physical Design Space. INCOSE International Symposium 27, 1 (2017), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00366.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00366.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Srivatsan Krishnan, Zishen Wan, Kshitij Bhardwaj, Paul Whatmough, Aleksandra Faust, Sabrina Neuman, Gu-Yeon Wei, David Brooks, and Vijay Janapa Reddi. 2021. AutoPilot: Automating SoC Design Space Exploration for SWaP Constrained Autonomous UAVs. arxiv:2102.02988 [cs.RO]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Edward A. Lee. 2015. The Past, Present and Future of Cyber-Physical Systems: A Focus on Models. Sensors 15, 3 (2015), 4837–4869. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150304837Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Edward A. Lee. 2016. Fundamental Limits of Cyber-Physical Systems Modeling. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 1, 1, Article 3 (Nov. 2016), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2912149Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Azad M. Madni and Michael Sievers. 2014. Systems Integration: Key Perspectives, Experiences, and Challenges. Systems Engineering 17, 1 (2014), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21249 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sys.21249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Sangeun Oh, Yongsu Jung, Seongsin Kim, Ikjin Lee, and Namwoo Kang. 2019. Deep generative design: Integration of topology optimization and generative models. Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 11 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2007. Quo Vadis, SLD? Reasoning About the Trends and Challenges of System Level Design. Proc. IEEE 95, 3 (2007), 467–506. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2006.890107Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Werner Damm, and Roberto Passerone. 2012. Taming Dr. Frankenstein: Contract-Based Design for Cyber-Physical Systems*. European Journal of Control 18, 3 (2012), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.3166/ejc.18.217-238Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Janos Sztipanovits, Xenofon Koutsoukos, Gabor Karsai, Nicholas Kottenstette, Panos Antsaklis, Vijay Gupta, Bill Goodwine, John Baras, and Shige Wang. 2012. Toward a Science of Cyber–Physical System Integration. Proc. IEEE 100, 1 (2012), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2161529Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. James D. Walker, F. Michael Heim, Bapiraju Surampudi, Pablo Bueno, Alexander Carpenter, Sidney Chocron, Jon Cutshall, Richard Lammons, Theodore Bapty, Brian Swenson, and Sydney Whittington. 2022. A Flight Dynamics Model for Exploring the Distributed Electrical eVTOL Cyber Physical Design Space. In 2022 IEEE Workshop on Design Automation for CPS and IoT (DESTION). 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/DESTION56136.2022.00008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Symbiotic CPS Design-Space Exploration through Iterated Optimization

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CPS-IoT Week '23: Proceedings of Cyber-Physical Systems and Internet of Things Week 2023
        May 2023
        419 pages
        ISBN:9798400700491
        DOI:10.1145/3576914

        Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 9 May 2023

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format