skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

DataOps for Cyber-Physical Systems Governance: The Airport Passenger Flow Case

Published:03 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Recent advancements in information technology have ushered a new wave of systems integrating Internet technology with sensing, wireless communication, and computational resources over existing infrastructures. As a result, myriad complex, non-traditional Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) have emerged, characterized by interaction among people, physical facilities, and embedded sensors and computers, all generating vast amounts of complex data. Such a case is encountered within a contemporary airport hall setting: passengers roaming, information systems governing various functions, and data being generated and processed by cameras, phones, sensors, and other Internet of Things technology. This setting has considerable potential of contributing to goals entertained by the CPS operators, such as airlines, airport operators/owners, technicians, users, and more. We model the airport setting as an instance of such a complex, data-intensive CPS where multiple actors and data sources interact, and generalize a methodology to support it and other similar systems. Furthermore, this article instantiates the methodology and pipeline for predictive analytics for passenger flow, as a characteristic manifestation of such systems requiring a tailored approach. Our methodology also draws from DataOps principles, using multi-modal and real-life data to predict the underlying distribution of the passenger flow on a flight-level basis (improving existing day-level predictions), anticipating when and how the passengers enter the airport and move through the check-in and baggage drop-off process. This allows to plan airport resources more efficiently while improving customer experience by avoiding passenger clumping at check-in and security. We demonstrate results obtained over a case from a major international airport in the Netherlands, improving up to 60% upon predictions of daily passenger flow currently in place.

References

  1. Airbus. 2018. Global Market Forecast. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/media-day/GMF-2018-2037.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Saqib Ali, Taiseera Al-Balushi, Zia Nadir, and Omar Khadeer Hussain. 2018. Cyber Security for Cyber Physical Systems. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 768. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Baresi, D. F. Mendonça, M. Garriga, S. Guinea, and G. Quattrocchi. 2019. A unified model for the mobile-edge-cloud continuum. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 19, 2 (April), Article 29, 21 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3226644 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kathy Charmaz and Linda Liska Belgrave. 2007. Grounded theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Duilio Curcio, Francesco Longo, Giovanni Mirabelli, and Enrico Pappoff. 2007. Passengers’ flow analysis and security issues in airport terminals using modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Modeling and Simulation. 4–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Konstantin Eckle and Johannes Schmidt-Hieber. 2019. A comparison of deep networks with ReLU activation function and linear spline-type methods. Neural Networks 110 (2019), 232–242. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2018.11.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Julian Ereth. 2018. DataOps—Towards a definition. In Proceedings of the 2018 Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen Conference (LWDA’13). 104–112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jarah Euston. 2018. What Is DataOps? Platform for the Machine Learning Age. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://www.nexla.com/define-dataops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michele Guerriero, Damian Andrew Tamburri, and Elisabetta Di Nitto. 2018. Defining, enforcing and checking privacy policies in data-intensive applications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’18). 172–182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Xiaojia Guo, Yael Grushka-Cockayne, and Bert De Reyck. 2019. Forecasting airport transfer passenger flow using real-time data and machine learning. SSRN. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3245609.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Weixin Huang, Yuming Lin, Borong Lin, and Liang Zhao. 2019. Modeling and predicting the occupancy in a China hub airport terminal using Wi-Fi data. Energy and Buildings 203 (2019), 109439. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109439Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv:1412.6980Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1097–1105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jay Lee, Behrad Bagheri, and Hung-An Kao. 2015. A cyber-physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters 3 (2015), 18–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jay Lee, Edzel Lapira, Behrad Bagheri, and Hung-an Kao. 2013. Recent advances and trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environment. Manufacturing Letters 1, 1 (2013), 38–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lijuan Liu and Rung-Ching Chen. 2017. A novel passenger flow prediction model using deep learning methods. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 84 (2017), 74–91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.08.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Xiaochen Liu, Lingshan Li, Xiaohua Liu, Tao Zhang, Xiangyang Rong, Ling Yang, and Dizhan Xiong. 2018. Field investigation on characteristics of passenger flow in a Chinese hub airport terminal. Building and Environment 133 (2018), 51–61. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4765–4774. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Monmousseau, G. Jarry, F. Bertosio, D. Delahaye, and M. Houalla. 2020. Predicting passenger flow at Charles de Gaulle airport security checkpoints. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics for Air Transportation (AIDA-AT’20). 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Palmer. 2015. From DevOps to DataOps. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://www.tamr.com/blog/from-devops-to-dataops-by-andy-palmer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A. Rothenberger, and Samir Chatterjee. 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 3 (2007), 45–77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ragunathan Raj Rajkumar, Insup Lee, Lui Sha, and John Stankovic. 2010. Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. In Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference. ACM, New York, NY, 731–736. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nornadiah Mohd Razali and Yap Bee Wah. 2011. Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics 2, 1 (2011), 21–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Frederick F. Reichheld. 2003. The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review 81, 12 (2003), 46–55. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should I trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, 1135–1144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Krishna Sampigethaya and Radha Poovendran. 2013. Aviation cyber–physical systems: Foundations for future aircraft and air transport. Proceedings of the IEEE 101, 8 (2013), 1834–1855.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Frank Saunders, Jason Rife, Sai Vaddi, and Victor Cheng. 2013. Information flow diagram analysis of a model cyber-physical system: Conflict detection and resolution for airport surface traffic. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 28, 12 (2013), 26–35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Dimitrios N. Serpanos, Howard E. Shrobe, and Muhammad Taimoor Khan. 2016. Behaviour-based security for cyber-physical systems. ERCIM News 107 (2016). http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/ercim/ercim2016.html#SerpanosSK16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Atefeh Shahroudnejad, Parnian Afshar, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, and Arash Mohammadi. 2018. Improved explainability of capsule networks: Relevance path by agreement. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP’18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 549–553.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Galit Shmueli. 2010. To explain or to predict? Statistical Science 25, 3 (2010), 289–310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Damian A. Tamburri. 2020. Design principles for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A formal concept analysis and its evaluation. Information Systems 91 (2020), 101469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Christos Tsigkanos, Cosmin Avasalcai, and Schahram Dustdar. 2019. Architectural considerations for privacy on the edge. IEEE Internet Computing 23, 4 (2019), 76–83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Christos Tsigkanos, Timo Kehrer, and Carlo Ghezzi. 2016. Architecting dynamic cyber-physical spaces. Computing 98, 10 (2016), 1011–1040. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Christos Tsigkanos, Timo Kehrer, and Carlo Ghezzi. 2017. Modeling and verification of evolving cyber-physical spaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE’17). 38–48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. C. Tsigkanos, L. Nenzi, M. Loreti, M. Garriga, S. Dustdar, and C. Ghezzi. 2019. Inferring analyzable models from trajectories of spatially-distributed Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 14th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS’19). 100–106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAMS.2019.00021 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Crystal Valentine and William Merchan. 2018. DataOps: An Agile Methodology for Data-Driven Organizations. Oracle White Paper. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/oracle-ds-data-ops-map-r.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanford Weisberg. 2005. Applied Linear Regression. Vol. 528. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Cort J. Willmott and Kenji Matsuura. 2005. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Research 30, 1 (2005), 79–82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Rüdiger Wirth and Jochen Hipp. 2000. CRISP-DM: Towards a standard process model for data mining. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Practical Applications of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 29–39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Bayya Yegnanarayana. 2009. Artificial Neural Networks. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. 2016. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. arXiv:1611.03530Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Quanshi Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2018. Interpretable convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8827–8836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. DataOps for Cyber-Physical Systems Governance: The Airport Passenger Flow Case

      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

      Full Access

      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
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!