skip to main content
research-article

Assured Mission Adaptation of UAVs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 July 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The design of systems that can change their behaviour to account for scenarios that were not foreseen at design time remains an open challenge. In this article, we propose an approach for adaptation of mobile robot missions that is not constrained to a predefined set of mission evolutions. We implement an adaptive software architecture and show how controller synthesis can be used both to guarantee correct transitioning from the old to the new mission goals with runtime architectural reconfiguration to include new software actuators and sensors if necessary. The architecture brings together architectural concepts that are commonplace in robotics such as temporal planning, discrete, hybrid and continuous control layers together with architectural concepts from adaptive systems such as runtime models and runtime synthesis. We validate the architecture flying several missions taken from the robotic literature for different real and simulated UAVs.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Ahmad A. and Babar M. A.. 2016. Software architectures for robotic systems: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software 122 (2016), 1639. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Alrajeh Dalal, Kramer Jeff, Russo Alessandra, and Uchitel Sebastian. 2013. Elaborating requirements using model checking and inductive learning. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 3 (2013), 361383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Amoui Mehdi, Derakhshanmanesh Mahdi, Ebert Jürgen, and Tahvildari Ladan. 2012. Achieving dynamic adaptation via management and interpretation of runtime models. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 12 (2012), 27202737. Self-Adaptive Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Arshad N., Heimbigner D., and Wolf A. L.. 2007. Deployment and dynamic reconfiguration planning for distributed software systems. Software Quality Journal 15, 3 (2007), 265281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [5] Atoev S., Kwon K., Lee S., and Moon K.. 2017. Data analysis of the MAVLink communication protocol. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Science and Communications Technologies. 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Autili M., Inverardi P., Mignosi F., Spalazzese R., and Tivoli M.. 2015. Automated synthesis of application-layer connectors from automata-based specifications. In Proceedings of the Language and Automata Theory and Applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Baidya Sabur, Shaikh Zoheb, and Levorato Marco. 2018. FlyNetSim: An open source synchronized UAV network simulator based on Ns-3 and ardupilot. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 3745.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Baier Christel and Katoen Joost-Pieter. 2008. Principles of Model Checking (Representation and Mind Series). The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Balkan A., Vardi M., and Tabuada P.. 2018. Mode-Target games: Reactive synthesis for control applications. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 63, 1 (2018), 196202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Banno F., Marletta D., Pappalardo G., and Tramontana E.. 2010. Handling consistent dynamic updates on distributed systems. In Proceedings of the Computers and Communications, 2010 IEEE Symposium on. 471476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Baresi Luciano and Ghezzi Carlo. 2010. The disappearing boundary between development-time and run-time. In Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research. ACM, New York, NY, 1722.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Beachly E., Detweiler C., Elbaum S., Twidwell D., and Duncan B.. 2017. UAS-Rx interface for mission planning, fire tracking, fire ignition, and real-time updating. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics. 6774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Belta C., Bicchi A., Egerstedt M., Frazzoli E., Klavins E., and Pappas G. J.. 2007. Symbolic planning and control of robot motion [Grand Challenges of Robotics]. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine 14, 1 (2007), 6170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Birnbaum Zachary, Dolgikh Andrey, Skormin Victor, O’Brien Edward, and Muller Daniel. 2014. Unmanned aerial vehicle security using recursive parameter estimation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, ICUAS 2014, Vol. 84. 692702.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Blair G., France R. B., and Bencomo N.. 2009. [email protected]. Computer 42, 10 (Oct. 2009), 2227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Bouafif H., Kamoun F., Iqbal F., and Marrington A.. 2018. Drone forensics: Challenges and new insights. In Proceedings of the 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security. 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Braberman Victor, D’Ippolito Nicolas, Kramer Jeff, Sykes Daniel, and Uchitel Sebastian. 2015. MORPH: A reference architecture for configuration and behaviour self-adaptation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Control Theory for Software Engineering (Bergamo, Italy). ACM, New York, NY, 916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Calinescu Radu, Weyns Danny, Gerasimou Simos, Iftikhar Muhammad Usman, Habli Ibrahim, and Kelly Tim. 2018. Engineering trustworthy self-adaptive software with dynamic assurance cases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 44, 11 (2018), 10391069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Cámara Javier, Moreno Gabriel A., and Garlan David. 2015. Reasoning about human participation in self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 146156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Cámara Javier, Schmerl Bradley, Moreno Gabriel A., and Garlan David. 2018. MOSAICO: Offline synthesis of adaptation strategy repertoires with flexible trade-offs. Automated Software Engineering 25, 3 (Sept. 2018), 595626.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Chakrabarty A., Morris R., Bouyssounouse X., and Hunt R.. 2016. Autonomous indoor object tracking with the Parrot AR.Drone. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 2530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Chen Haibo, Yu Jie, Hang Chengqun, Zang Binyu, and Yew Pen-Chung. 2011. Dynamic software updating using a relaxed consistency model. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 37, 5 (Sept 2011), 679694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Choi H., Geeves M., Alsalam B., and Gonzalez F.. 2016. Open source computer-vision based guidance system for UAVs on-board decision making. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference. 15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Cordeau Jean-Françcois, Laporte Gilbert, and Ropke Stefan. 2008. Recent Models and Algorithms for One-to-One Pickup and Delivery Problems. Springer US, Boston, MA, 327357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Barros J. d. S., Oliveira T., Nigam V., and Brito A. V.. 2016. A framework for the analysis of UAV strategies using co-simulation. In Proceedings of the 2016 VI Brazilian Symposium on Computing Systems Engineering. 915.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Rogério de Lemos, Holger Giese, Hausi A. Müller, Mary Shaw, Jesper Andersson, Marin Litoiu, Bradley Schmerl, Gabriel Tamura, Norha M. Villegas, Thomas Vogel, Danny Weyns, Luciano Baresi, Basil Becker, Nelly Bencomo, Yuriy Brun, Bojan Cukic, Ron Desmarais, Schahram Dustdar, Gregor Engels, Kurt Geihs, Karl M. Göschka, Alessandra Gorla, Vincenzo Grassi, Paola Inverardi, Gabor Karsai, Jeff Kramer, Antónia Lopes, Jeff Magee, Sam Malek, Serge Mankovskii, Raffaela Mirandola, John Mylopoulos, Oscar Nierstrasz, Mauro Pezzè, Christian Prehofer, Wilhelm Schäfer, Rick Schlichting, Dennis B. Smith, João Pedro Sousa, Ladan Tahvildari, Kenny Wong, and Jochen Wuttke. 2013. Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: A second research roadmap. In Proceedings of the Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II. Springer, 132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] DeCastro J. A., Raman V., and Kress-Gazit H.. 2015. Dynamics-driven adaptive abstraction for reactive high-level mission and motion planning. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 369376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Denker Ahmet and Iseri Mehmet Can. 2017. Design and implementation of a semi-autonomous mobile search and rescue robot: SALVOR. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium. 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] D’Ippolito Nicolás, Braberman Víctor, Kramer Jeff, Magee Jeff, Sykes Daniel, and Uchitel Sebastian. 2014. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst: Multi-tier control for adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 688699.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] D’Ippolito N., Braberman V., Piterman N., and Uchitel S.. 2011. Synthesis of live behaviour models for fallible domains. In Proceedings of the 2011 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering. 211220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] D’Ippolito N., Fischbein D., Chechik M., and Uchitel S.. 2008. MTSA: The modal transition system analyser. In Proceedings of the 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 475476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Dorn Christoph and Taylor Richard N.. 2013. Coupling software architecture and human architecture for collaboration-aware system adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 5362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Dubal S., Yadav M., Singh V., Uniyal V., and Singh M.. 2016. Smart aero-amphibian surveillance system. In Proceedings of the International Conference Workshop on Electronics Telecommunication Engineering. 112116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Fainekos G. E., Kress-Gazit H., and Pappas G. J.. 2005. Temporal logic motion planning for mobile robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 20202025.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Fikes Richard E. and Nilsson Nils J.. 1971. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 608620.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Finucane C., Jing Gangyuan, and Kress-Gazit H.. 2010. LTLMoP: Experimenting with language, temporal logic and robot control. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 19881993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] García S., Menghi C., Pelliccione P., Berger T., and Wohlrab R.. 2018. An architecture for decentralized, collaborative, and autonomous robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture. 757509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] García Sergio, Pelliccione Patrizio, Menghi Claudio, Berger Thorsten, and Bures Tomas. 2019. High-level mission specification for multiple robots. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 127140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Garlan David, Cheng Shang-Wen, Huang An-Cheng, Schmerl Bradley, and Steenkiste Peter. 2004. Rainbow: Architecture-based self-adaptation with reusable infrastructure. Computer 37, 10 (Oct. 2004), 4654.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Gat E.. 1997. Three-layer Architectures, Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Robots. MIT/AAAI Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Gerostathopoulos I., Bures T., Hnetynka P., Hujecek A., and Skoda D. Plasil, and F.. 2017. Strengthening adaptation in cyber-physical systems via meta-adaptation strategies. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 1, 3 (04 2017), 125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Gheibi Omid, Weyns Danny, and Quin Federico. 2021. Applying machine learning in self-adaptive systems: A systematic literature review. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive 15, 3, Article 9 (Aug. 2021), 37 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Giannakopoulou Dimitra and Magee Jeff. 2003. Fluent model checking for event-based systems. In Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 257266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Greenyer Joel, Brenner Christian, Cordy Maxime, Heymans Patrick, and Gressi Erika. 2013. Incrementally synthesizing controllers from scenario-based product line specifications. In Proceedings of the 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. New York, NY, 433443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Guo M., Andersson S., and Dimarogonas D. V.. 2018. Human-in-the-Loop mixed-initiative control under temporal tasks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 63956400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Gupta Deepak, Jalote Pankaj, and Barua Gautam. 1996. A formal framework for on-line software version change. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22, 2 (1996), 120131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Hayden Christopher M., Magill Stephen, Hicks Michael, Foster Nate, and Foster Jeffrey S.. 2012. Specifying and verifying the correctness of dynamic software updates. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Verified Software: Theories, Tools, Experiments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 278293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Hosek Petr and Cadar Cristian. 2013. Safe software updates via multi-version execution. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 612621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Hua Lizhong and Shao Guofan. 2016. The progress of operational forest fire monitoring with infrared remote sensing. Journal of Forestry Research 28, 2 (Dec. 2016), 115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Issarny Valérie, Bennaceur Amel, and Bromberg Yérom-David. 2011. Middleware-Layer Connector Synthesis: Beyond State of the Art in Middleware Interoperability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, 217255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Jing Gangyuan, Tosun Tarik, Yim Mark, and Kress-Gazit Hadas. 2017. An end-to-end system for accomplishing tasks with modular robots: Perspectives for the AI community. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 48794883.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Jurdzinski Marcin. 2000. Small progress measures for solving parity games. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 290301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Juvekar Sudeep and Piterman Nir. 2006. Minimizing generalized büchi automata. In Proceedings of the Computer Aided Verification, Ball Thomas and Jones Robert B. (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, 4558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. [54] Keller Robert. 1976. Formal verification of parallel programs. Communications of the ACM 19, 7 (07 1976), 371384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Kephart J. O. and Chess D. M.. 2003. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36, 1 (Jan 2003), 4150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. [56] Khakpour Narges, Arbab Farhad, and Rutten Eric. 2015. Synthesizing structural and behavioral control for reconfigurations in component-based systems. Formal Aspects of Computing 28, 1 (Dec. 2015), 21–43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [57] Kramer Jeff and Magee Jeff. 1990. The evolving philosophers problem: Dynamic change management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16, 11 (Nov. 1990), 12931306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. [58] Kramer Jeff and Magee Jeff. 2007. Self-Managed systems: An architectural challenge. In Proceedings of the 2007 Future of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 259268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] Kress-Gazit H., Fainekos G., and Pappas G.. 2008. Translating structured english to robot controllers. Advanced Robotics 22 (10 2008), 13431359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. [60] Kress-Gazit H., Fainekos G. E., and Pappas G. J.. 2007. Where’s waldo? sensor-based temporal logic motion planning. In Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 31163121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. [61] Kress-Gazit H., Fainekos G. E., and Pappas G. J.. 2009. Temporal-Logic-Based reactive mission and motion planning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 25, 6 (2009), 13701381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. [62] Kress-Gazit Hadas, Lahijanian Morteza, and Raman Vasumathi. 2018. Synthesis for robots: Guarantees and feedback for robot behavior. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 1, 1 (2018), 211236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Kucuk Omer, Topaloglu Ozer, Altunel Arif, and Cetin Mehmet. 2017. Visibility analysis of fire lookout towers in the boyabat state forest enterprise in Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 7, 189, Article 329 (Jun. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] Livingston S. C. and Murray R. M.. 2013. Just-in-time synthesis for reactive motion planning with temporal logic. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 50485053.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] Cabreira Tauã M., Brisolara Lisane, and Jr Paulo Ferreira. 2019. Survey on coverage path planning with unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones 3, 1 (01 2019), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Maniatopoulos S., Schillinger P., Pong V., Conner D. C., and Kress-Gazit H.. 2016. Reactive high-level behavior synthesis for an Atlas humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 41924199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. [67] Menghi C., Tsigkanos C., Pelliccione P., Ghezzi C., and Berger T.. 2019. Specification patterns for robotic missions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 10 (2019), 22082224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. [68] Milhouse Mark O.. 2015. Framework for autonomous delivery drones. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Conference on Research in Information Technology. 14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. [69] Nahabedian L., Braberman V., D’Ippolito N., Honiden S., Kramer J., Tei K., and Uchitel S.. 2018. Dynamic update of discrete event controllers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46, 11 (2018), 12201240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. [70] Nooruldeen A. and Schmidt K. W.. 2015. State attraction under language specification for the reconfiguration of discrete event systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 60, 6 (June 2015), 16301634.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. [71] Manna V. Panzica La, Greenyer J., Ghezzi C., and Brenner C.. 2013. Formalizing correctness criteria of dynamic updates derived from specification changes. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. IEEE Press, 6372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] Pecker-Marcosig E., Zudaire S., Garrett M., Uchitel S., and Castro R.. 2020. Unified DEVS-based platform for modeling and simulation of hybrid control systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 Winter Simulation Conference. 10511062.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Pelliccione Patrizio, Tivoli Massimo, Bucchiarone Antonio, and Polini Andrea. 2008. An architectural approach to the correct and automatic assembly of evolving component-based systems. Journal of Systems and Software 81, 12 (Dec. 2008), 22372251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. [74] Piterman Nir, Pnueli Amir, and Sa’ar Yaniv. 2006. Synthesis of reactive (1) designs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3855 (2006), 364380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. [75] Pnueli A. and Rosner R.. 1989. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, NY, 179190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. [76] Ramadge Peter J. G. and Wonham W. Murray. 1989. The control of discrete event systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 77, 1 (1989), 8198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. [77] Ramirez Andres J., Cheng Betty H. C., McKinley Philip K., and Beckmann Benjamin E.. 2010. Automatically generating adaptive logic to balance non-functional tradeoffs during reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomic Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 225234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. [78] Rokhmana C. A. and Andaru R.. 2016. Utilizing UAV-based mapping in post disaster volcano eruption. In Proceedings of the 2016 6th International Annual Engineering Seminar. 202205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. [79] Rudolph Stefan, Tomforde Sven, and Hähner Jörg. 2019. Mutual influence-aware runtime learning of self-adaptation behavior. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 14, 1, Article 4 (Sept. 2019), 37 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. [80] Seifzadeh Habib, Abolhassani Hassan, and Moshkenani Mohsen Sadighi. 2013. A survey of dynamic software updating. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 25, 5 (2013), 535568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. [81] Sinisterra A., Dhanak M., and Kouvaras N.. 2017. A USV platform for surface autonomy. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2017 - Anchorage. 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. [82] Sykes D., Heaven W., Magee J., and Kramer J.. 2008. From goals to components: A combined approach to self-management. In Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. [83] Tajalli Hossein, Garcia Joshua, Edwards George, and Medvidovic Nenad. 2010. PLASMA: A plan-based layered architecture for software model-driven adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 467476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. [84] Tariq A., Osama S. M., and Gillani A.. 2016. Development of a low cost and light weight UAV for photogrammetry and precision land mapping using aerial imagery. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology. 360364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. [85] team CanberraUAV OBC. 2020. MAVProxy Software Package. Retrieved January 16, 2020 from https://github.com/ArduPilot/MAVProxy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. [86] Thuijsman Sander and Reniers Michel. 2020. Transformational supervisor synthesis for evolving systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 53, 4 (2020), 309316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. [87] Toth Paolo, Vigo Daniele, Toth Paolo, and Vigo Daniele. 2014. Vehicle Routing: Problems, Methods, and Applications, Second Edition. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. [88] Uchitel Sebastián, Chatley Robert, Kramer Jeff, and Magee Jeff. 2004. Fluent-Based animation: Exploiting the relation between goals and scenarios for requirements validation. In Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. 208217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. [89] Vogel Thomas and Giese Holger. 2014. Model-Driven engineering of self-adaptive software with EUREMA. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 8, 4, Article 18 (Jan. 2014), 33 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. [90] Wang J., Chen W., and Temu V.. 2018. Multi-Vehicle motion planning for search and tracking. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval. 352355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. [91] Wei M. and Isler V.. 2018. Coverage path planning under the energy constraint. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 368373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. [92] Yamazaki Y., Tamaki M., Premachandra C., Perera C. J., Sumathipala S., and Sudantha B. H.. 2019. Victim detection using UAV with on-board voice recognition system. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing. 555559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. [93] Yan Z., He J., and Li J.. 2017. An improved multi-AUV patrol path planning method. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. 19301936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. [94] Yang Y., Zhao J., Yin X., and Li S.. 2019. Formal synthesis of warehouse robotic systems with temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics. 469474.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. [95] Zavala Edith, Franch Xavier, and Marco Jordi. 2019. HAFLoop: An architecture for supporting highly adaptive feedback loops in self-adaptive systems. Future Generation Computer Systems 105, C (Dec. 2019), 607–630.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. [96] Zhang Ji and Cheng Betty H. C.. 2006. Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software engineering. ACM, 371380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. [97] Zudaire S., Garrett M., and Uchitel S.. 2020. Iterator-based temporal logic task planning. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. [98] Zudaire S., Nahabedian L., and Uchitel S.. 2021. Fork of MAVProxy to support hybrid controllers and assured mission adaptation. Retrieved October 12, 2021 from https://bitbucket.org/szudaire/modules.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. [99] Zudaire S., Nahabedian L., and Uchitel S.. 2021. MTSA tool, LTS requirements and mission videos. Retrieved October 12, 2021 from http://mtsa.dc.uba.ar/uav/uav-morph.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Assured Mission Adaptation of UAVs

          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

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
            ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 16, Issue 3-4
            December 2021
            150 pages
            ISSN:1556-4665
            EISSN:1556-4703
            DOI:10.1145/3543993
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 6 July 2022
            • Online AM: 28 March 2022
            • Revised: 1 January 2022
            • Accepted: 1 January 2022
            • Received: 1 June 2021
            Published in taas Volume 16, Issue 3-4

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          Full Text

          View this article in Full Text.

          View Full Text

          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!