Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-03T15:19:57.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specifying and Reasoning about CPS through the Lens of the NIST CPS Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2022

THANH HAI NGUYEN Open the ORCID record for THANH HAI NGUYEN [Opens in a new window] ,
MATTHEW BUNDAS ,
TRAN CAO SON ,
MARCELLO BALDUCCINI ,
KATHLEEN CAMPBELL GARWOOD  and
EDWARD R. GRIFFOR
THANH HAI NGUYEN
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
MATTHEW BUNDAS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
TRAN CAO SON
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
MARCELLO BALDUCCINI
Affiliation:
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
KATHLEEN CAMPBELL GARWOOD
Affiliation:
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
EDWARD R. GRIFFOR
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technologies, Gaithersburg, USA (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces a formal definition of a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) in the spirit of the CPS Framework proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It shows that using this definition, various problems related to concerns in a CPS can be precisely formalized and implemented using Answer Set Programming (ASP). These include problems related to the dependency or conflicts between concerns, how to mitigate an issue, and what the most suitable mitigation strategy for a given issue would be. It then shows how ASP can be used to develop an implementation that addresses the aforementioned problems. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the proposed methodologies.

Keywords

artificial intelligenceknowledge representationautomated reasoning and planningcyber-physical systemanswer set programmingconcern satisfactionCPS ontology
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , September 2023 , pp. 1029 - 1069
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Matthew Bundas has been supported by the GAANN grant #P200A180005. Tran Cao Son has been partially supported by the following NSF grants 1914635, 1757207, and 1812628.

References

Aerts, A., Reniers, M. A. and Mousavi, M. R. 2017. Cyber-Physical Systems - Foundations, Principles and Applications, chapter 19. Model-Based Testing of Cyber-Physical Systems. Intelligent Data-Centric Systems, 287–304.Google Scholar
Balas, E. 1975. Disjunctive programming: Cutting planes from logical conditions. In Nonlinear Programming 2. Elsevier, 279–312.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M., Griffor, E., Huth, M., Vishik, C., Burns, M. and Wollman, D. A. 2018. Ontology-based reasoning about the trustworthiness of cyber-physical systems. ArXiv, abs/1803.07438, 1.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Lierler, Y. 2017. Constraint answer set solver EZCSP and why integration schemas matter. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), 17, 4, 462–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., Gelfond, M. and Rushton, N. 2009. Probabilistic reasoning with answer sets. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 9, 1, 57–144.10.1017/S1471068408003645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., Tran, N. and Tuan, L.-C. Reasoning about actions in a probabilistic setting. In AAAI/IAAI 2002, 507–512.Google Scholar
D’Iddio, A. C. and Huth, M. 2017. ManyOpt: An Extensible Tool for Mixed, Non-Linear Optimization Through SMT Solving. CoRR, abs/1702.01332.Google Scholar
Eiter, T. 2007. Answer set programming for the semantic web. In Logic Programming, 23rd International Conference, ICLP 2007, Porto, Portugal, September 8–13, 2007, Proceedings, V. Dahl and I. Niemelä, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4670. Springer, 23–26.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A. and Schaub, T. clasp: A conflict-driven answer set solver. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’07), C. Baral, G. Brewka and J. Schlipf, Eds., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4483. Springer-Verlag, 260–265.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1990. Logic programs with classical negation. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, D. Warren and P. Szeredi, Eds, 579–597.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing actions and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17, 2,3,4, 301–323.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 3, 6.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Son, T. C. 1998. Prioritized default theory. In Selected Papers from the Workshop on Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation 1997, LNAI, vol. 1471. Springer Verlag, 164–223.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. and Traverso, P. 2004. Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Griffor, E., Greer, C., Wollman, D. A. and Burns, M. J. 2017a. Framework for cyber-physical systems: Volume 1, overview.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffor, E., Greer, C., Wollman, D. A. and Burns, M. J. 2017b. Framework for cyber-physical systems: Volume 2, working group reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. A. 2016. Fundamental limits of cyber-physical systems modeling. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, 1, 1, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-year Perspective, 375–398.Google Scholar
Mistr, M., D’Iddio, A. C., Huth, M. and Misener, R. 2017. Satisfiability modulo theories for process systems engineering. eprints for the optimization community.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moschopoulos, J. 2001. Ship control technology; A US Navy perspective. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 34, 7, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T., Son, T. C., Bundas, M., Balduccini, M., Garwood, K. C. and Griffor, E. 2020a. Reasoning about trustworthiness in cyber-physical systems using ontology-based representation and asp. In PRIMA.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. H., Pontelli, E. and Son, T. C. 2020b. On repairing web services workflows. In Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, E. Komendantskaya and Y. A. Liu, Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 37–53.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. H., Potelli, E. and Son, T. C. 2018a. Phylotastic: An experiment in creating, manipulating, and evolving phylogenetic biology workflows using logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 18a, 3-4, 656–672.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. H., Son, T. C. and Pontelli, E. 2018b. Automatic web services composition for phylotastic. In PADL, Los Angeles, CA, USA, January 8–9, 2018, Proceedings, 186–202.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25, 3,4, 241–273.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I., Simons, P. and Soininen, T. 1999. Stable model semantics for weight constraint rules. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 315–332.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2012. ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), 12, 4–5, 485–503.Google Scholar
Roehm, H., Oehlerking, J., Woehrle, M. and Althoff, M. 2019. Model conformance for cyber-physical systems: A survey. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 3, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A., Kim, D. S. and Trivedi, K. S. 2012. Attack countermeasure trees (ACT): Towards unifying the constructs of attack and defense trees. Security and Communication Networks, 5, 8, 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoukry, Y., Chong, M., Wakaiki, M., Nuzzo, P., Seshia, S. A., Hespanha, J. P. and Tabuada, P. 2018. SMT-based observer design for cyber-physical systems under sensor attacks. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, T., Baral, C., Tran, N. and McIlraith, S. 2006. Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 7, 4, 613–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepjit, S., Horvath, I. and Rusak, Z. 2019. The state of framework development for implementing reasoning mechanisms in smart cyber-Physical systems: A literature review. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 6, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uluagac, C. S., Aksu, H. and Babun, L. 2019. A system-level behavioral detection framework for compromised CPS devices: Smart-grid case. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 2.Google Scholar
Wollman, D. A., Weiss, M. A., Li-Baboud, Y.-S., Griffor, E. and Burns, M. J. Framework for cyber-physical systems: Volume 3, timing annex 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar