EURECA: epistemic uncertainty classification scheme for runtime information exchange in collaborative system groups

  • Constantin HildebrandtEmail author
  • Torsten Bandyszak
  • Ana Petrovska
  • Nishanth Laxman
  • Emilia Cioroaica
  • Sebastian Törsleff
Special Issue Paper


Collaborative embedded systems (CES) typically operate in highly dynamic contexts that cannot be completely predicted during design time. These systems are subject to a wide range of uncertainties occurring at runtime, which can be distinguished in aleatory or epistemic. While aleatory uncertainty refers to stochasticity that is present in natural or physical processes and systems, epistemic uncertainty refers to the knowledge that is available to the system, for example, in the form of an ontology, being insufficient for the functionalities that require certain knowledge. Even though both of these two kinds of uncertainties are relevant for CES, epistemic uncertainties are especially important, since forming collaborative system groups requires a structured exchange of information. In the autonomous driving domain for instance, the information exchange between different CES of different vehicles may be related to own or environmental behavior, goals or functionalities. By today, the systematic identification of epistemic uncertainties sourced in the information exchange is insufficiently explored, as only some specialized classifications for uncertainties in the area of self-adaptive systems exist. This paper contributes an epistemic uncertainty classification scheme for runtime information exchange (EURECA) in collaborative system groups. By using this classification scheme, it is possible to identify the relevant epistemic sources of uncertainties for a CES during requirements engineering.


Uncertainty Requirements engineering Runtime information exchange Collaboration 



The contribution presented in this paper was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under Grant Number 01IS16043 Collaborative Embedded Systems (CrESt).


  1. 1.
    Manfred Broy. Engineering cyber-physical systems - challenges and foundations. In Complex Systems Design and Management, pages 1–13. Springer, 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jia D, Lu K, Wang J, Zhang X, Shen X (2016) A survey on platoon-based vehicular cyber-physical systems. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 18(1):263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MB, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process-a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22(11):1543–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esfahani N, Malek S (2013) Uncertainty in self-adaptive software systems. In: de Lemos R, Giese H, Müller HA, Shaw M (eds) Software engineering for self-adaptive systems II. Springer, pp 214–238Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramirez AJ, Jensen AC, Cheng BH (2012) A taxonomy of uncertainty for dynamically adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on software engineering for adaptive and self-managing systems. IEEE Press, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perez-Palacin D, Mirandola R (2014) Uncertainties in the modeling of self-adaptive systems: a taxonomy and an example of availability evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/SPEC international conference on performance engineering. ACM, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahdavi-Hezavehi S, Avgeriou P, Weyns D (2017) A classification framework of uncertainty in architecture-based self-adaptive systems with multiple quality requirements. In: Managing trade-offs in adaptable software architectures. Elsevier, pp 45–77Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cámara J et al (2017) Uncertainty in self-adaptive systems categories, management, and perspectives. Technical Report Collection, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang M, Selic B, Ali S, Yue T, Okariz O, Norgren R (2016) Understanding uncertainty in cyber-physical systems: a conceptual model. In: European conference on modelling foundations and applications. Springer, pp 247–264Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cailliau A, van Lamsweerde A (2015) Handling knowledge uncertainty in risk-based requirements engineering. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, pp 106–115Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lombardi AM (2017) The epistemic and aleatory uncertainties of the etas-type models: an application to the central Italy seismicity. Sci Rep 7(1):11812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Welsh K, Sawyer P (2010) Understanding the scope of uncertainty in dynamically adaptive systems. In: International working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, pp 2–16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garlan D (2010) Software engineering in an uncertain world. In: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on future of software engineering research. ACM, pp 125–128Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liang K-Y, Mårtensson J, Johansson KH (2016) Heavy-duty vehicle platoon formation for fuel efficiency. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(4):1051–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daun M, Brings J, Weyer T, Tenbergen B (2016) Fostering concurrent engineering of cyber-physical systems a proposal for an ontological context framework. In: 2016 3rd international workshop on emerging ideas and trends in engineering of cyber-physical systems (EITEC). IEEE, pp 5–10Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petrovska A, Grigoleit F (2018) Towards context modeling for dynamic collaborative embedded systems in open context. MRC@ IJCAIGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brings J, Daun M, Hildebrandt C, Törsleff S (2018) An ontological context modeling framework for coping with the dynamic contexts of cyber-physical systems. In: MODELSWARD, pp 396–403Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hsu A, Sachs S, Eskafi F, Varaiya (1991) The design of platoon maneuvers for ivhs. In: 1991 american control conference, pp 2545–2550Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dey KC, Yan L, Wang X, Wang Y, Shen H, Chowdhury M, Yu L, Qiu C, Soundararaj V (2016) A review of communication, driver characteristics, and controls aspects of cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC). IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(2):491–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Segata M, Bloessl B, Joerer S, Dressler F, Cigno RL (2014) Supporting platooning maneuvers through ivc: an initial protocol analysis for the join maneuver. In: 2014 11th annual conference on wireless on-demand network systems and services (WONS), pp 130–137Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mallozzi P, Sciancalepore M, Pelliccione P (2016) Formal verification of the on-the-fly vehicle platooning protocol. In: Crnkovic I, Troubitsyna E (eds) Software engineering for resilient systems. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cioroaica E, Kuhn T, Bauer T (2018) Prototyping automotive smart ecosystems. In: 2018 48th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks workshops (DSN-W). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Popp KM (2010) Goals of software vendors for partner ecosystems–a practitioner s view. In: International conference of software business. Springer, pp 181–186Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan MA, Boloni L (2005) Convoy driving through ad-hoc coalition formation. In: 11th IEEE real time and embedded technology and applications symposium, pp 98–105Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Toy C, Leung K, Alvarez L, Horowitz R (2002) Emergency vehicle maneuvers and control laws for automated highway systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 3(2):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aramrattana M, Larsson T, Jansson J, Englund C (2015) Dimensions of cooperative driving, its and automation. In: 2015 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 144–149Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ebers S, Hellbck H, Pfisterer D, Fischer S (2013) Short paper: collaboration between vanet applications based on open standards. In: 2013 IEEE vehicular networking conference, pp 174–177Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu X, Goldsmith A, Mahal SS, Hedrick JK (2001) Effects of communication delay on string stability in vehicle platoons. In: 2001 IEEE intelligent transportation systems proceedings, pp 625–630Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bandyszak T, Kuhs P, Kleinblotekamp J, Daun M (2018) On the use of orthogonal context uncertainty models in the engineering of collaborative embedded systems. In: Schaefer I, Cleophas L, Felderer M (eds) Joint proceedings of the workshops at Modellierung 2018 co-located with Modellierung 2018, volume 2060 of CEUR workshop proceedings., pp 121–130Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barrachina J, Garrido P, Fogue M, Martinez FJ, Cano JC, Calafate CT, Manzoni P (2012) Caova: a car accident ontology for VANETs. In: 2012 IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC), pp 1864–1869Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barrachina J, Garrido P, Fogue M, Martinez FJ, Cano J-C, Calafate CT, Manzoni P (2012) VEACON: a vehicular accident ontology designed to improve safety on the roads. J Netw Comput Appl 35(6):1891–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ruta M, Scioscia F, Gramegna F, Ieva S, Di Sciascio E, De Vera RP (2018) A knowledge fusion approach for context awareness in vehicular networks. IEEE Internet Things J 5(4):2407–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gregor D, Toral SL, Ariza T, Barrero F, Gregor R, Rodas J, Arzamendia M (2016) A methodology for structured ontology construction applied to intelligent transportation systems. Comput Stand Interfaces 47:108–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bosch J, Olsson HH (2018) Ecosystem traps and where to find them. J Softw Evol Process 30:e1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Staab S, Studer R (2010) Handbook on ontologies. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Patel-Schneider P, Nardi D (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Daun M, Weyer T, Pohl K (2014) Validating the functional design of embedded systems against stakeholder intentions. In: 2014 2nd international conference on model-driven engineering and software development (MODELSWARD). IEEE, pp 333–339Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hildebrandt C, Törsleff S, Caesar B, Fay A (2018) Ontology building for cyber-physical systems: a domain expert-centric approach. In: 2018 14th IEEE conference on automation science and engineering (CASE 2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantin Hildebrandt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Torsten Bandyszak
    • 2
  • Ana Petrovska
    • 3
  • Nishanth Laxman
    • 4
  • Emilia Cioroaica
    • 5
  • Sebastian Törsleff
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Automation TechnologyHelmut-Schmidt-UniversityHamburgGermany
  2. 2.paluno – The Ruhr Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Fakultät für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGarching bei MünchenGermany
  4. 4.Software Engineering: DependabilityTechnische Universität KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  5. 5.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  6. 6.Institute of Automation TechnologyHelmut-Schmidt-UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations