Cyber-physical systems combine a cyber side (computing and networking) with a physical side (mechanical, electrical, and chemical processes). In many cases, the cyber component controls the physical side using sensors and actuators that observe the physical system and actuate the controls. Such systems present the biggest challenges as well as the biggest opportunities in several large industries, including electronics, energy, automotive, defense and aerospace, telecommunications, instrumentation, industrial automation. Engineers today do successfully design cyber-physical systems in a variety of industries. Unfortunately, the development of systems is costly, and development schedules are difficult to stick to. The complexity of cyber-physical systems, and particularly the increased performance that is offered from interconnecting what in the past have been separate systems, increases the design and verification challenges. As the complexity of these systems increases, our inability to rigorously model the interactions between the physical and the cyber sides creates serious vulnerabilities. Systems become unsafe, with disastrous inexplicable failures that could not have been predicted. Distributed control of multi-scale complex systems is largely an unsolved problem. A common view that is emerging in research programs in Europe and the US is “enabling contract-based design (CBD),” which formulates a broad and aggressive scope to address urgent needs in the systems industry. We present a design methodology and a few examples in controller design whereby contract-based design can be merged with platform-based design to formulate the design process as a meet-in-the-middle approach, where design requirements are implemented in a subsequent refinement process using as much as possible elements from a library of available components. Contracts are formalizations of the conditions for correctness of element integration (horizontal contracts), for lower level of abstraction to be consistent with the higher ones, and for abstractions of available components to be faithful representations of the actual parts (vertical contracts).

This article presents a taxonomy for ESL tools and methodologies that combines UC Berkeley's platform-based design terminologies with Dan Gajski's Y-chart work. This is timely and necessary because in the ESL world we seem to be building tools without first establishing an appropriate design flow or methodology, thereby creating a lot of confusion. This taxonomy can help stem the tide of confusion

The explosive growth of embedded electronics is bringing information and control systems of increasing complexity to every aspects of our lives. The most challenging designs are safety-critical systems, such as transportation systems (e.g., airplanes, cars, and trains), industrial plants and health care monitoring. The difficulties reside in accommodating constraints both on functionality and implementation. The correct behavior must be guaranteed under diverse states of the environment and potential failures; implementation has to meet cost, size,and power consumption requirements. The design is therefore subject to extensive mathematical analysis and simulation. However, traditional models of information systems do not interface well to the continuous evolving nature of the environment in which these devices operate.Thus, in practice, different mathematical representations have to be mixed to analyze the overall behavior of the system. Hybrid systems are a particular class of mixed models that focus on the combination of discrete and continuous subsystems. There is a wealth of tools and languages that have been proposed over the years to handle hybrid systems. However, each tool makes different assumptions on the environment, resulting in somewhat different notions of hybrid system. This makes it difficult to share information among tools. Thus, the community cannot maximally leverage the substantial amount of work that has been directed to this important topic. In this paper, we review and compare hybrid system tools by highlighting their differences in terms of their underlying semantics, expressive power and mathematical mechanisms. We conclude our review with a comparative summary, which suggests the need for a unifying approach to hybrid systems design. As a step in this direction, we make the case for a semantic-aware inter-change format, which would enable the use of joint techniques, make a formal comparison between different approaches possible, and facilitate exporting and importing design representations.