The Object Management Group's (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) strategy envisages a world where models play a more direct role in software production, being amenable to manipulation and transformation by machine. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is wider in scope than MDA. MDE combines process and analysis with architecture. This article sets out a framework for model driven engineering, which can be used as a point of reference for activity in this area. It proposes an organisation of the modelling 'space' and how to locate models in that space. It discusses different kinds of mappings between models. It explains why process and architecture are tightly connected. It discusses the importance and nature of tools. It identifies the need for defining families of languages and transformations, and for developing techniques for generating/configuring tools from such definitions. It concludes with a call to align metamodelling with formal language engineering techniques.

Model Driven Engineering

Self-adaptation is typically realized using a control loop. One prominent approach for organizing a control loop in self-adaptive systems is by means of four components that are responsible for the primary functions of self-adaptation: Monitor, Analyze, Plan, and Execute, together forming a MAPE loop. When systems are large, complex, and heterogeneous, a single MAPE loop may not be sufficient for managing all adaptation in a system, so multiple MAPE loops may be introduced. In self-adaptive systems with multiple MAPE loops, decisions about how to decentralize each of the MAPE functions must be made. These decisions involve how and whether the corresponding functions from multiple loops are to be coordinated (e.g., planning components coordinating to prepare a plan for an adaptation). To foster comprehension of self-adaptive systems with multiple MAPE loops and support reuse of known solutions, it is crucial that we document common design approaches for engineers. As such systematic knowledge is currently lacking, it is timely to reflect on these systems to: (a) consolidate the knowledge in this area, and (b) to develop a systematic approach for describing different types of control in self-adaptive systems. We contribute with a simple notation for describing interacting MAPE loops, which we believe helps in achieving (b), and we use this notation to describe a number of existing patterns of interacting MAPE loops, to begin to fulfill (a). From our study, we outline numerous remaining research challenges in this area.

https://homepage.lnu.se/staff/daweaa/papers/2012SefSAS.pdf

On Patterns for Decentralized Control in Self-Adaptive Systems

A survey on engineering approaches for self-adaptive systems

The complexity of information systems is increasing in recent years, leading to increased effort for maintenance and configuration. Self-adaptive systems (SASs) address this issue. Due to new computing trends, such as pervasive computing, miniaturization of IT leads to mobile devices with the emerging need for context adaptation. Therefore, it is beneficial that devices are able to adapt context. Hence, we propose to extend the definition of SASs and include
context adaptation. This paper presents a taxonomy of self-adaptation and a survey on engineering SASs. Based on the taxonomy and the survey, we motivate a new perspective on SAS including context adaptation.

A survey on engineering approaches for self-adaptive systems (extended version)

Context: Variability (i.e., the ability of software systems or artifacts to be adjusted for different contexts) became a key property of many systems. Objective: We analyze existing research on variability in software systems. We investigate variability handling in major software engineering phases (e.g., requirements engineering, architecting). Method: We performed a systematic literature review. A manual search covered 13 premium software engineering journals and 18 premium conferences, resulting in 15,430 papers searched and 196 papers considered for analysis. To improve reliability and to increase reproducibility, we complemented the manual search with a targeted automated search. Results: Software quality attributes have not received much attention in the context of variability. Variability is studied in all software engineering phases, but testing is underrepresented. Data to motivate the applicability of current approaches are often insufficient; research designs are vaguely described. Conclusions: Based on our findings we propose dimensions of variability in software engineering. This empirically grounded classification provides a step towards a unifying, integrated perspective of variability in software systems, spanning across disparate or loosely coupled research themes in the software engineering community. Finally, we provide recommendations to bridge the gap between research and practice and point to opportunities for future research.

/pdf/variability-in-software-systems-a-systematic-literature-87sm8ue4cj.pdf

Variability in Software Systems—A Systematic Literature Review

One major challenge in self-adaptive systems is to assure the required quality properties. Formal methods provide the means to rigorously specify and reason about the behaviors of self-adaptive systems, both at design time and runtime. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic study has been performed on the use of formal methods in self-adaptive systems. As a result, there is no clear view on what methods have been used to verify self-adaptive systems, and what support these methods offer to software developers. As such insight is important for researchers and engineers, we performed a systematic literature review covering 12 main software engineering venues and 4 journals, resulting in 75 papers used for data collection. The study shows that the attention for self-adaptive software systems is gradually increasing, but the number of studies that employ formal methods remains low. The main focus of formalization is on modeling and reasoning. Model checking and theorem proving have gained limited attention. The main concerns of interest in formalization of self-adaptation are efficiency/performance and reliability. Important adaptation concerns, such as security and scalability, are hardly considered. To verify the concerns of interest, a set of new properties are defined, such as interference freedom, responsiveness, mismatch, and loss-tolerance. A relevant part of the studies use formal methods at runtime, but the use is limited to modeling and analysis. Formal methods can be applied to other runtime activities of self-adaptation, and there is a need for light-weight tools to support runtime verification.

/pdf/a-survey-of-formal-methods-in-self-adaptive-systems-4fvozdq7zn.pdf

A survey of formal methods in self-adaptive systems

Self-adaptation enables a software system to deal autonomously with uncertainties, such as dynamic operating conditions that are difficult to predict or changing goals. A common approach to realize self-adaptation is with a MAPE-K feedback loop that consists of four adaptation components: Monitor, Analyze, Plan, and Execute. These components share Knowledge models of the managed system, its goals and environment. To provide guarantees of the adaptation goals, state of the art approaches propose using formal models of the knowledge. However, less attention is given to the formalization of the adaptation components themselves, which is important to provide guarantees of correctness of the adaptation behavior (e.g., does the execute component execute the plan correctly?). We propose Active FORmal Models for Self-adaptation (ActivFORMS) that uses an integrated formal model of the adaptation components and knowledge models. The formal model is directly executed by a virtual machine to realize adaptation, hence active model. The contributions of ActivFORMS are: (1) the approach assures that the adaptation goals that are verified offline are guaranteed at runtime, and (2) it supports dynamic adaptation of the active model to support changing goals. We show how we have applied ActivFORMS for a small-scale robotic system.

/pdf/activforms-active-formal-models-for-self-adaptation-acox3c6cki.pdf

ActivFORMS: active formal models for self-adaptation

Despite the vast body of work on self-adaption, no systematic study has been performed on the claims associated with self-adaptation and the evidence that exists for these claims. As such an insight is crucial for researchers and engineers, we performed a literature study of the research results from SEAMS since 2006 and the associated Dagstuhl seminar in 2008. The study shows that the primary claims of self-adaptation are improved flexibility, reliability, and performance of the system. On the other hand, the tradeoffs implied by self-adaptation have not received much attention. Evidence is obtained from basic examples, or simply lacking. Few systematic empirical studies have been performed, and no industrial evidence is reported. From the study, we offer the following recommendations to move the field forward: to improve evaluation, researchers should make their assessment methods, tools and data publicly available; to deal with poor discussion of limitations, conferences/workshops should require an explicit section on limitations in engineering papers; to improve poor treatment of tradeoffs, this aspect should be an explicit subject of reviews; and finally, to enhance industrial validation, the best academy-industry efforts could be formally recognized by the community.

https://cs.gmu.edu/~smalek/papers/SEAMS2012-Weyns.pdf

Claims and supporting evidence for self-adaptive systems: a literature study

Building on concepts drawn from control theory, self-adaptive software handles environmental and internal uncertainties by dynamically adjusting its architecture and parameters in response to events such as workload changes and component failures. Self-adaptive software is increasingly expected to meet strict functional and non-functional requirements in applications from areas as diverse as manufacturing, healthcare and finance. To address this need, we introduce a methodology for the systematic ENgineering of TRUstworthy Self-adaptive sofTware (ENTRUST). ENTRUST uses a combination of (1) design-time and runtime modelling and verification, and (2) industry-adopted assurance processes to develop trustworthy self-adaptive software and assurance cases arguing the suitability of the software for its intended application. To evaluate the effectiveness of our methodology, we present a tool-supported instance of ENTRUST and its use to develop proof-of-concept self-adaptive software for embedded and service-based systems from the oceanic monitoring and e-finance domains, respectively. The experimental results show that ENTRUST can be used to engineer self-adaptive software systems in different application domains and to generate dynamic assurance cases for these systems.

Engineering Trustworthy Self-Adaptive Software with Dynamic Assurance Cases.

Modern software systems are subject to uncertainties, such as dynamics in the availability of resources or changes of system goals. Self-adaptation enables a system to reason about runtime models to adapt itself and realises its goals under uncertainties. Our focus is on providing guarantees for adaption goals. A prominent approach to provide such guarantees is automated verification of a stochastic model that encodes up-to-date knowledge of the system and relevant qualities. The verification results allow selecting an adaption option that satisfies the goals. There are two issues with this state of the art approach: i) changing goals at runtime (a challenging type of uncertainty) is difficult, and ii) exhaustive verification suffers from the state space explosion problem. In this paper, we propose a novel modular approach for decision making in self-adaptive systems that combines distinct models for each relevant quality with runtime simulation of the models. Distinct models support on the fly changes of goals. Simulation enables efficient decision making to select an adaptation option that satisfies the system goals. The tradeoff is that simulation results can only provide guarantees with a certain level of accuracy. We demonstrate the benefits and tradeoffs of the approach for a service-based telecare system.

/pdf/model-based-simulation-at-runtime-for-self-adaptive-systems-5a3iasor4j.pdf

M. Usman Iftikhar

Papers

A survey of formal methods in self-adaptive systems

ActivFORMS: active formal models for self-adaptation

Claims and supporting evidence for self-adaptive systems: a literature study

Engineering Trustworthy Self-Adaptive Software with Dynamic Assurance Cases.

Model-Based Simulation at Runtime for Self-Adaptive Systems