Talk:Cyber–physical system

Term "intelligent system"

The introduction currently reads "A cyber-physical system (CPS) or intelligent system is ...". However I doubt the two terms could be used interchangeably. For instance Intelligent system does not point to this article. I think we should remove this mention in the introduction.

2A01:CB04:A49:4500:BFFC:A7C9:8A5A:DA0D (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, a CPS can be an intelligent system, but an intelligent system is not necessarily a CPS, as a CPS has a physical element, but an intelligent (I assume here the meaning of being programmed) system could reside in a computer that has no actuating outputs. GR8DAN (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources and references

Started this page since it didn't exist. Hopefully others who know what this is can fill in the blanks. Good sources include the various class web pages floating out there. Good references include Lee's 2006 paper, the NSF workshop on CPS, various Mobisys papers, etc. I'm thinking introduction, relation to embedded systems and sensor networks, applications, computing challenges, etc. Thomaslw (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear @MrOllie: and fellow CPS experts. There are two updates on CPS released by the European CPS community, you will likely find them interesting to read. (https://zenodo.org/record/7462025 ; https://zenodo.org/record/7462013) Can they be included as part of Further Reading? ZéroDeltaG (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello all, a third version of CPS from the research perspective has been released by the European CPS Community (https://zenodo.org/records/10874520). It is an important positioning article for those approaching CPS from such a research perspective and seems very relevant to be included as further reading. So I will add and hope we have consensus on this point. ZéroDeltaG (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure this page is difficult to maintain with so many domains connected to CPS. It would be nice to have some guideline established for suitable references on such a complex domain-transverse topic on wikipedia. ZéroDeltaG (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Origins of the term?

Can anyone clarify the origins of the term "cyber-physical systems"? Was it coined by a particular researcher or research group, or did it originate with the NSF? The earliest references I can find to it are the 2006 NSF Workshop, and the use of the word "cyber" in this way smacks of the federal government. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, and I've been searching a lot of stuff, I think it was coined in that workshop. Prior to that, I think the academic community called it Deeply Embedded Embedded-Systems or Sensor networks. Afterwards though there has been alot of movement towards focusing efforts in this new field using the term CPS (since that's where the NSF money is). Like CPS Week now includes three major conferences - RTAS, HSCC, and ISPN. In addition, IEEE and ACM both have special issues in their SIGs dedicated to CPS. Thomaslw (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was pretty much the impression I'd got. The best verifiable information I've been able to find on the topic is that NSF thinks CPS is a key research area. I've added the relevant information to the article.

Incidentally, the CPS idea seems very similar to what the National Research Council's 2001 Embedded Everywhere report called "EmNets". But I have yet to find anything that directly mentions this connection or describes the relationship between the two ideas. It does seem like many of the groups that preciously referenced Embedded Everywhere as a motivation are writing papers on cyber-physical systems. As you said, I guess that term is where the funding is.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edward A. Lee cites Helen Gill of the NSF. http://chess.eecs.berkeley.edu/charter.htm says:

"The term cyber-physical systems (CPS) was coined by Helen Gill at the National Science Foundation in the U.S. to refer to the integration of computation with physical processes. In CPS, embedded computers and networks monitor and control the physical processes, usually with feedback loops where physical processes affect computations and vice versa. The design of such systems, therefore, requires understanding the joint dynamics of computers, software, networks, and physical processes. It is this study of joint dynamics that sets this discipline apart."

See page xii of Edward A. Lee and Sanjit A. Seshia, Introduction to Embedded Systems, A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach, http://LeeSeshia.org, ISBN 978-0-557-70857-4, 2011. Full Disclosure, I work for Edward Lee. Cxbrx (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More precision with defining the term has occurred recently with engineering consultations, for instance a report on the foundations of CPS engineering. I will propose an update based on this, including a less technical bit, once I get a moment. Ultimâ (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok introduction reworked, it was vague without specific characterization. There was also an erroneous indication of similarity with IoT - the IoT is a concept focused on connectivity, B2C and largely non-safety critical - whereas a CPS is an implementation focused on coordination to achieve physical changes, mostly B2B and predominantly safety-critical. Ultimâ (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ultimâ, regarding this, you re-worked it, but it's not sourced. Previous part is sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A leading paragraph doesn't necessarily need to be sourced if people agree with the synthesis, it should be sufficient to provide sourcing in the talk, but it is easy enough to transfer the sourcing to the main page. The previous leading is not only vague, but the references are outdated. I will implement the update in two steps (leading paragraph and then the part about IoT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.78.141 (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The proposed change is continued in the section below "Lead Section". Ultimâ (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPA edits

A lot of cites for Zhuge, made by an SPA that mostly adds text and cites for Zhuge. Yakushima (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed that section that talks about a "Cyber-Physical Systems Society" because it appears to be self promotion. Full disclosure, I work at Berkeley for Edward Lee. Cxbrx (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyber-physical system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090117190823/http://www.truststc.org/scada/ to http://www.truststc.org/scada/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cyber-physical system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517071555/http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/cps/ to http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/cps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512140507/http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/Summit/ to http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/Summit
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827190646/http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/Auto-CPS/ to http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/Auto-CPS
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716112148/http://collaboration.greatplains.net/wiki/index.php/Workshop:_Bridging_the_Cyber,_Physical_and_Social_Worlds to http://collaboration.greatplains.net/wiki/index.php/Workshop%3A_Bridging_the_Cyber%2C_Physical_and_Social_Worlds
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624001323/http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/CPS/Position-Papers/Tabuada.pdf to http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/cps/Position-Papers/Tabuada.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624002916/http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/CPS/Position-Papers/Rajesh-Gupta.pdf to http://varma.ece.cmu.edu/cps/Position-Papers/Rajesh-Gupta.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

@Ultimâ: Your recent edit to the lead section contains some good parts, however as others have noted in edit summaries, and as stated in more detail at MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English." Also, "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible." Would you be willing to create a lead section that addresses the criticisms and conforms to these and the other guidelines for lead sections described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? –LiberatorG (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear LiberatorG, I fully appreciate this and was the purpose of my modification. It's a pity Wiki doesn't provide a change request feature so people can discuss before a change appears for main viewers, but it's not the case and why reverting should rarely be used (because halts any general discussion or consensus).

The modification was proposed already on this talk page above, in relation to the CPS definition (which suffers from many perspectives) and has been sourced from a recent CPS community initiative for consensus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimâ (talk • contribs)

This is one of the things your user sandbox is for. You can demo any text you like there without the need for consensus. It is not the case that text under discussion needs to be maintained in the live article. That is the opposite of what WP:BRD says. - MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear @ST47:, the reason for the change you reverted was discussed in a prior section (§ Origins of the term?). LiberatorG was favourable about the modification but asked for it to be more digestible for the average reader (considering Wiki guidelines), which I worked on. To avoid circles here, would you evolve the change to resolve your concern? Ultimâ (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone, the change is quoted below for accessibility, some specific references from the sources are also provided. The lead represents the topic in a nutshell and mentions controversies or varying interpretations (wikipedia). The characteristics in the quote are proposed in recent attempts to clarify representation of CPS - from the previous sources one can refer to the report Collaboration on the foundations of CPS engineering which in turn is based on several engagements including workshops (CPS Community Enhancement - Structuring for CPS Clarity & Platforms4CPS final workshop - Clarity&Collaboration ) and invited conference talks ( IEEE: 13th System of System Engineering Conference, Paris, 19th - 22nd of June & HiPEAC: Heraklion Session 4: Main Track: EU session).

A cyber-physical (also styled cyberphysical) system (CPS) converts goals defined digitally (the cyber domain) to the physical world and has six primary characteristics. These are sensing, processing, physical action, communicating, energy needs, and finally capability for coordination and collaboration. Examples range from a constellation of satellites, rail network systems up to smart cities. Their design requires physical and software components to be deeply intertwined, each operating on different spatial and temporal scales, exhibiting multiple and distinct behavioral modalities, and interacting with each other in a lot of ways that change with context. Due to the wide variety of domains using CPS, there is some variance of definitions in relation to context. Both the EU and US maintain working groups on CPS..

References

ZéroDeltaG (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems a good approach to find consensus. Does anyone wish to evolve the update shown above before it's reintroduced to the article? Ultimâ (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no demonstrated consensus that this proposed lead is better than what is in the article now. Please don't start edit warring again. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I think the point of placing the proposed change here was to enable consensus and avoid edit warring. You have evidence of many people favourable to the perspective above. So there is consensus about the perspective - which means there is sufficient justification to update the article. But to have everyone unanimously relatively satisfied, please propose how\where you think it should be integrated? Ultimâ (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I reject the premise of your question. This should not be integrated, because it is not an improvement. It does not do what a lead section should do, see MOS:LEAD. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Data entry operation

Stgd 2405:201:E015:19DB:E54D:305F:B5E1:E9E2 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The en dash is the wrong punctuation for the term cyber-physical

I changed instances of "cyber–physical" to "cyber-physical" because the en dash is the wrong punctuation for the phrase; it should have a regular dash or hyphen. I did not find an original source that used the en dash (I'll admit I did not look exhaustively), nor is there a reason to expect that punctuation in the first place following any style guide I'm aware of. 100.6.7.84 (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)