pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.19629 · v3 · submitted 2025-05-26 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.RO

Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Robotics: A Research Agenda

Hassan Sartaj , Shaukat Ali , Ana Cavalcanti , Lukas Esterle , Cl\'audio Gomes , Peter Gorm Larsen , Anastasios Tefas , Jim Woodcock
show 1 more author
Houxiang Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 14:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.RO
keywords self-adaptive roboticssoftware engineeringresearch agendadigital twinsAI-driven adaptationMAPE-Kautonomous systemsroadmap
0
0 comments X

The pith

Self-adaptive robotic systems need a dedicated software engineering agenda organized by lifecycle stages and enabling technologies to handle real-world uncertainty.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper sets out a research agenda for building reliable software in robots that must change their own behavior on the fly. It organizes the work along two main lines: the full software lifecycle from requirements through operations, and supporting technologies such as digital twins and AI-driven decision making. The authors map open problems including verification of adaptive actions under uncertainty, trade-offs among safety, performance, and flexibility, and integration of established adaptation loops like MAPE-K. They consolidate these issues into a concrete roadmap aimed at 2030. A reader would care because many current robots still rely on fixed code that breaks when environments shift, and better engineering practices are required before large-scale deployment becomes trustworthy.

Core claim

The central claim is that structuring software engineering challenges for self-adaptive robotics along the dimensions of lifecycle stages and enabling technologies such as digital twins and AI-driven adaptation produces a usable roadmap that will help establish the foundations of trustworthy and efficient systems for real-world use.

What carries the argument

Two-dimensional structure that separates software engineering lifecycle stages (requirements, design, development, testing, operations) from enabling technologies (digital twins, AI-driven adaptation) to organize challenges and the 2030 roadmap.

If this is right

  • Verification techniques for adaptive behavior under uncertainty become a priority research target.
  • Trade-off analysis between adaptability, performance, and safety must be built into every lifecycle stage.
  • Digital twins and AI-driven adaptation frameworks will be required for runtime monitoring and fault detection.
  • Integration of MAPE-K and MAPLE-K loops will guide the design of self-adaptation mechanisms.
  • Research investment should follow the 2030 roadmap to produce deployable trustworthy robots.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The agenda could serve as a template for similar roadmaps in other domains that combine software with continuous adaptation, such as autonomous vehicles or smart infrastructure.
  • Industry standards bodies might adopt parts of the lifecycle structure when drafting certification guidelines for adaptive systems.
  • Empirical studies could test whether projects that follow the two dimensions produce measurably safer or more maintainable robots than those that do not.
  • The roadmap implies that progress in digital-twin fidelity will directly affect the speed at which verification challenges can be solved.

Load-bearing premise

The two chosen dimensions capture the main open challenges without missing important aspects that would require additional categories.

What would settle it

A widely recognized challenge in self-adaptive robotics, such as certification of safety properties or human-robot interaction protocols, that cannot be placed under either the lifecycle stages or the listed enabling technologies and is not covered by the proposed roadmap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19629 by Ana Cavalcanti, Anastasios Tefas, Cl\'audio Gomes, Hassan Sartaj, Houxiang Zhang, Jim Woodcock, Lukas Esterle, Peter Gorm Larsen, Shaukat Ali.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A conceptual view of the MAPLE-K loop for SAR and the phases of the software engineering lifecycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of the roadmap, illustrating its structure and the aspects covered in the software engineering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dependency graph for challenges in SRE and normative requirements for SAR. 5 Software Design for SAR In this section, we begin with an overview of the SAR software design and its associated challenges. We then discuss key aspects of SAR software design in the context of model-driven engineering and simulation by reviewing literature and highlighting open research challenges. Finally, we conclude with a sum… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependency graph for challenges in software design for SAR. 5.3 Model-Driven Engineering for SAR 5.3.1 Foundations and Related Research Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) has been successfully applied in domains such as aerospace and automotive, and offers strong potential for SAR. By treating abstract models as central artefacts, MDE supports requirements clarifica￾tion, early validation, and automated code g… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependency graph for challenges in MDE for SAR. 5.4 Simulation Approaches for SAR 5.4.1 Foundations and Related Research Simulation offers a risk-free and cost-effective means of validating designs and exploring adaptation strategies before deployment. Foundations. A model is a representation of a system capturing relevant properties. Simulations produce traces of behaviour under varying conditions, with f… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependency graph for challenges in simulations for SAR. 6 Software Development of SAR In this section, we begin with an overview of research on the development of SAR software. Following this, we outline open challenges that need to be addressed. 6.1 Foundations and Related Research Software development for SAR focuses on implementing advanced self-adaptation mechanisms, such as MAPE￾K/MAPLE-K loops, to en… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependency graph for challenges in software development of SAR. 7 Software Testing of SAR This section begins with an overview of research on software testing in SAR. Then it highlights a set of open challenges that remain to be addressed. 7.1 Foundations and Related Research Testing plays a key role in ensuring that self-adaptive robots function as intended while meeting all safety and de￾pendability requ… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependency graph for challenges in software testing for SAR. 8 Operations for SAR This section starts by reviewing research contributions in the field of operations for SAR. Next, it presents key open challenges that require further exploration. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependency graph for challenges in operations for SAR. 9 Key Enabling Technologies In this section, we provide an overview of two key enabling technologies shaping the future of self-adaptive robotics, namely DTs (Section 9.1) and AI (Section 9.2), along with their associated challenges and opportunities. Several other technologies can play an important role in specific SAR contexts, such as decentralised … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dependency graph for challenges in digital twins for SAR. 9.2 Artificial Intelligence This section first presents an overview of the research and then highlights open challenges. 9.2.1 Foundations and Related Research AI has become a cornerstone in the evolution of robotics, enabling robots to perform complex tasks with increasing autonomy and adaptability. AI techniques, including machine learning (ML), … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependency graph for challenges in AI for SAR. 10 2030 Research Agenda In this section, we begin by analysing the challenges outlined in the previous sections with respect to quality aspects (Section 10.1), aiming to identify key areas that require future attention. We then examine how SAR characteristics are relevant to the challenges outlined in this roadmap (Section 10.2). Next, we analyse the relation… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Self-adaptive robotic systems operate autonomously in dynamic and uncertain environments, requiring robust real-time monitoring and adaptive behaviour. Unlike traditional robotic software with predefined logic, self-adaptive robots exploit artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and model-driven engineering to adapt continuously to changing conditions, thereby ensuring reliability, safety, and optimal performance. This paper presents a research agenda for software engineering in self-adaptive robotics, structured along two dimensions. The first concerns the software engineering lifecycle, requirements, design, development, testing, and operations, tailored to the challenges of self-adaptive robotics. The second focuses on enabling technologies such as digital twins and AI-driven adaptation, which support runtime monitoring, fault detection, and automated decision-making. We identify open challenges, including verifying adaptive behaviours under uncertainty, balancing trade-offs between adaptability, performance, and safety, and integrating self-adaptation frameworks like MAPE K/MAPLE-K. By consolidating these challenges into a roadmap toward 2030, this work contributes to the foundations of trustworthy and efficient self-adaptive robotic systems capable of meeting the complexities of real-world deployment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a research agenda for software engineering in self-adaptive robotics. It structures the agenda along two dimensions: the software engineering lifecycle stages (requirements, design, development, testing, and operations) tailored to self-adaptive systems, and enabling technologies such as digital twins and AI-driven adaptation supporting runtime monitoring, fault detection, and decision-making. Open challenges are identified including verification of adaptive behaviors under uncertainty, balancing trade-offs among adaptability, performance, and safety, and integration of frameworks like MAPE-K/MAPLE-K. These are consolidated into a roadmap toward 2030 aimed at foundations for trustworthy and efficient self-adaptive robotic systems.

Significance. If the proposed two-dimensional structure and identified challenges accurately reflect key priorities in the field, the agenda could usefully frame and prioritize research directions at the intersection of software engineering and self-adaptive robotics. The work provides a synthetic contribution by consolidating existing concepts into a forward-looking roadmap, which may help coordinate efforts toward real-world deployment; its value lies in this framing rather than new empirical data or formal results.

major comments (1)
  1. The section defining the research agenda structure: the assumption that the two proposed dimensions (software engineering lifecycle stages and enabling technologies) adequately capture the primary open challenges is presented without justification, comparison to alternative dimensions (such as ethical or regulatory aspects), or evidence from a systematic literature review. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the resulting 2030 roadmap contributes to the foundations of the field.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and roadmap section could more explicitly reference prior surveys or taxonomies in self-adaptive systems to strengthen the positioning of the new agenda.
  2. Figure or table summarizing the two-dimensional structure and mapped challenges would improve clarity and allow readers to quickly assess coverage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our research agenda. We address the major comment below and outline revisions that will strengthen the justification for the proposed structure without altering the core contribution.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section defining the research agenda structure: the assumption that the two proposed dimensions (software engineering lifecycle stages and enabling technologies) adequately capture the primary open challenges is presented without justification, comparison to alternative dimensions (such as ethical or regulatory aspects), or evidence from a systematic literature review. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the resulting 2030 roadmap contributes to the foundations of the field.

    Authors: We agree that additional explicit justification would improve the manuscript. The two dimensions were chosen to directly map established software engineering lifecycle phases to the distinctive runtime adaptation needs of robotic systems, while the enabling technologies dimension highlights concrete mechanisms (e.g., digital twins, AI-driven control) that support those phases. This framing is informed by prior work on MAPE-K and self-adaptive systems cited in the paper. In the revised version we will add a short subsection that (a) states the rationale for selecting these dimensions over others, (b) briefly contrasts them with ethical, regulatory, and socio-technical dimensions (noting that the latter are complementary but outside the software-engineering scope of the present agenda), and (c) clarifies that the challenges are synthesised from the cited literature rather than derived from a new systematic review. We do not claim to have performed a fresh SLR; the paper is positioned as an agenda that consolidates existing insights. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is an agenda/position paper that proposes a two-dimensional research roadmap (SE lifecycle stages plus enabling technologies) and lists open challenges such as verification under uncertainty and MAPE-K integration. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions exist. The central claim is a framing proposal rather than a result derived from inputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear. The paper is self-contained as a discussion document whose value lies in structuring future work, not in reducing claims to its own definitions or citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a research agenda paper, the contribution rests on domain assumptions about the importance of self-adaptation in robotics rather than introducing new parameters, entities, or unproven axioms. No free parameters or invented entities are defined.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-adaptive robotic systems require continuous monitoring and adaptation using AI, machine learning, and model-driven engineering to ensure reliability and safety in dynamic environments.
    This premise is invoked in the abstract to justify the need for tailored software engineering approaches and the overall research agenda.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5747 in / 1285 out tokens · 46077 ms · 2026-05-19T14:37:24.247016+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

168 extracted references · 168 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Risk-driven online testing and test case diversity analysis for ml-enabled critical systems

    Jubril Gbolahan Adigun, Tom Philip Huck, Matteo Camilli, and Michael Felderer. Risk-driven online testing and test case diversity analysis for ml-enabled critical systems. In2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pages 344–354, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ ISSRE59848.2023.00017

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    & Chen, C

    Ben Agro, Quinlan Sykora, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Implicit occupancy flow fields for perception and prediction in self-driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1379–1388, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00139

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00139 2023

  3. [3]

    Dynamic software updating: a systematic mapping study.IET Software, 14(5):468–481, 2020

    Babiker Hussien Ahmed, Sai Peck Lee, Moon Ting Su, and Abubakar Zakari. Dynamic software updating: a systematic mapping study.IET Software, 14(5):468–481, 2020. doi: 10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0201

    work page doi:10.1049/iet-sen.2019.0201 2020

  4. [4]

    Development and integration of self-adaptation strategies for robotics software

    Elvin Alberts. Development and integration of self-adaptation strategies for robotics software. In2023 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C), pages 131–136, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICSA-C57050.2023.00038

    work page doi:10.1109/icsa-c57050.2023.00038 2023

  5. [5]

    Software architecture-based self-adaptation in robotics.Journal of Systems and Software, 219:112258, 2025

    Elvin Alberts, Ilias Gerostathopoulos, Ivano Malavolta, Carlos Hern´andez Corbato, and Patricia Lago. Software architecture-based self-adaptation in robotics.Journal of Systems and Software, 219:112258, 2025. doi: 10. 1016/j.jss.2024.112258

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Model-based adaptation for robotics software.IEEE software, 36(2):83–90, 2019

    Jonathan Aldrich, David Garlan, Christian K ¨astner, Claire Le Goues, Anahita Mohseni-Kabir, Ivan Ruchkin, Selva Samuel, Bradley Schmerl, Christopher Steven Timperley, Manuela Veloso, et al. Model-based adaptation for robotics software.IEEE software, 36(2):83–90, 2019. doi: 10.1109/MS.2018.2885058

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2018.2885058 2019

  7. [7]

    Exosoul: Ethical profiling in the digital world

    Constanza Alfieri, Paola Inverardi, Patrizio Migliarini, and Massimiliano Palmiero. Exosoul: Ethical profiling in the digital world. In Stefan Schlobach, Mar ´ıa P´erez-Ortiz, and Mel Tielman, editors,HHAI 2022: Aug- menting Human Intellect, volume 354 ofFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 128–142, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2022. IO...

    work page doi:10.3233/faia220194 2022

  8. [8]

    Multi-robot systems and cooperative object transport: Communications, platforms, and challenges.IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 4:23–36, 2023

    Xing An, Celimuge Wu, Yangfei Lin, Min Lin, Tsutomu Yoshinaga, and Yusheng Ji. Multi-robot systems and cooperative object transport: Communications, platforms, and challenges.IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 4:23–36, 2023. doi: 10.1109/OJCS.2023.3238324

    work page doi:10.1109/ojcs.2023.3238324 2023

  9. [9]

    Formal design and verification of self-adaptive systems with decentralized control.ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 11(4):1–35, January 2017

    Paolo Arcaini, Elvinia Riccobene, and Patrizia Scandurra. Formal design and verification of self-adaptive systems with decentralized control.ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 11(4):1–35, January 2017. ISSN 1556-4703. doi: 10.1145/3019598

    work page doi:10.1145/3019598 2017

  10. [10]

    Askarpour, L

    M. Askarpour, L. Lestingi, S. Longoni, N. Iannacci, M. Rossi, and F. Vicentini. Formally-based model-driven development of collaborative robotic applications.Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(3):59, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Architecture model to improve the development of robotics online reconfiguration.International Journal of Control and Automation, 8(1):69–82,

    Xiaoan Bao, Xiance Sun, Ning Gui, Na Zhang, Hui Lin, and Shuhan Liu. Architecture model to improve the development of robotics online reconfiguration.International Journal of Control and Automation, 8(1):69–82,

    work page

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.14257/ijca.2015.8.1.06

    work page doi:10.14257/ijca.2015.8.1.06 2015

  13. [13]

    Barnes, Lukas Esterle, and John N

    Chloe M. Barnes, Lukas Esterle, and John N. A. Brown. ”when you believe in things that you don’t understand”: the effect of cross-generational habits on self-improving system integration. In2019 IEEE 4th International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W), pages 28–31, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.1109/FAS-W.2019.00020

    IEEE. doi: 10.1109/FAS-W.2019.00020

    work page doi:10.1109/fas-w.2019.00020 2019

  15. [15]

    doi:10.1109/ACCESS

    Barbara Rita Barricelli, Elena Casiraghi, and Daniela Fogli. A Survey on Digital Twin: Definitions, Character- istics, Applications, and Design Implications.IEEE Access, 7:167653–167671, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS. 2019.2953499

    work page doi:10.1109/access 2019

  16. [16]

    doi: 10.1007/s10626-023-00390-y

    Fernando Barros.πhyflow: formalism, semantics, and applications.Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, 34(1): 95–124, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10626-023-00390-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10626-023-00390-y 2024

  17. [17]

    Bastian, C

    J. Bastian, C. Clauß, S. Wolf, and P. Schneider. Master for co-simulation using FMI. InModelica Conf., pages 1–6, Dresden, Germany, 2011. Fraunhofer IIS / EAS

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Formal architectural patterns for adaptive robotic software

    James Baxter, Bert Van Acker, Morten Kristensen, Thomas Wright, Ana Cavalcanti, and Cl ´audio Gomes. Formal architectural patterns for adaptive robotic software. InInternational Conference on Fundamen- tal Approaches to Software Engineering, pages 145–165, Switzerland Cham, 2025. Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90900-9 8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90900-9 2025

  19. [19]

    Models@run.time: a guided tour of the state of the art and re- search challenges.Software & Systems Modeling, 18(5):3049–3082, 2019

    Nelly Bencomo, Sebastian G ¨otz, and Hui Song. Models@run.time: a guided tour of the state of the art and re- search challenges.Software & Systems Modeling, 18(5):3049–3082, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s10270-018-00712-x. 30 Sartaj et al

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-018-00712-x 2019

  20. [20]

    Digital twin enabled runtime verification for autonomous mobile robots under uncertainty

    Joakim Schack Betzer, Jalil Boudjadar, Mirgita Frasheri, and Prasad Talasila. Digital twin enabled runtime verification for autonomous mobile robots under uncertainty. In2024 28th International Symposium on Dis- tributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (DS-RT), pages 10–17, New York, NY , USA, 2024. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/DS-RT62209.2024.00012

    work page doi:10.1109/ds-rt62209.2024.00012 2024

  21. [21]

    Bhatti, H

    G. Bhatti, H. Mohan, and R. R. Singh. Towards the future of smart electric vehicles: Digital twin technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 141:110801, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Belal Islam, Alan Bond, and Andry Rakotonirainy

    Hridoy Bhuiyan, Franco Olivieri, Guido Governatori, Md. Belal Islam, Alan Bond, and Andry Rakotonirainy. A methodology for encoding regulatory rules. InProceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mining and Reasoning with Legal texts: co-located with the 32nd International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2019), pages 1–13...

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Model validity and tolerance quantification for real-time adaptive approx- imation

    Raheleh Biglari and Joachim Denil. Model validity and tolerance quantification for real-time adaptive approx- imation. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings, MODELS ’22, pages 668–676, New York, NY , USA, October 2022. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3550356.3561604

    work page doi:10.1145/3550356.3561604 2022

  24. [24]

    A roadmap for ai in robotics.Nature Machine Intelligence, 7(6):818–824, 2025

    Aude Billard, Alin Albu-Schaeffer, Michael Beetz, Wolfram Burgard, Peter Corke, Matei Ciocarlie, Ravinder Dahiya, Danica Kragic, Ken Goldberg, Yukie Nagai, et al. A roadmap for ai in robotics.Nature Machine Intelligence, 7(6):818–824, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s42256-025-01050-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01050-6 2025

  25. [25]

    Devs-based formalism for the modeling of routing pro- cesses.Software and Systems Modeling, 21(3):1179–1208, 2022

    Mar ´ıa Julia Blas, Horacio Leone, and Silvio Gonnet. Devs-based formalism for the modeling of routing pro- cesses.Software and Systems Modeling, 21(3):1179–1208, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10270-021-00928-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-021-00928-4 2022

  26. [26]

    Functional mockup interface 2.0: The standard for tool-independent exchange of simulation models

    Torsten Blockwitz, Martin Otter, Johan Akesson, Martin Arnold, Christoph Clauss, Hilding Elmqvist, Markus Friedrich, Andreas Junghanns, Jakob Mauss, Dietmar Neumerkel, Hans Olsson, and Antoine Viel. Functional mockup interface 2.0: The standard for tool-independent exchange of simulation models. InProceedings of the 9th International MODELICA Conference, ...

    work page doi:10.3384/ecp12076173 2012

  27. [27]

    Bot ´ın-Sanabria, Adriana-Simona Mihaita, Rodrigo E

    Diego M. Bot ´ın-Sanabria, Adriana-Simona Mihaita, Rodrigo E. Peimbert-Garc ´ıa, Mauricio A. Ram ´ırez- Moreno, Ricardo A. Ram ´ırez-Mendoza, and Jorge de J. Lozoya-Santos. Digital twin technology challenges and applications: A comprehensive review.Remote Sensing, 14(6):1335, 2022. ISSN 2072-4292. doi: 10.3390/rs14061335. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292...

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14061335 2022

  28. [28]

    Safety for mobile robotic systems: A systematic mapping study from a software engineering perspective.Journal of Systems and Software, 151:150–179, 2019

    Darko Bozhinoski, Davide Di Ruscio, Ivano Malavolta, Patrizio Pelliccione, and Ivica Crnkovic. Safety for mobile robotic systems: A systematic mapping study from a software engineering perspective.Journal of Systems and Software, 151:150–179, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.021 2019

  29. [29]

    Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective.Swarm Intelligence, 7(1):1–41, 2013

    Manuele Brambilla, Eliseo Ferrante, Mauro Birattari, and Marco Dorigo. Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective.Swarm Intelligence, 7(1):1–41, 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11721-012-0075-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11721-012-0075-2 2013

  30. [30]

    Adams, and Nando de Freitas

    Paul A. Bremner, Louise A. Dennis, Michael Fisher, and Alan F. T. Winfield. On proactive, transparent, and verifiable ethical reasoning for robots.Proceedings of the IEEE, 107(3):541–561, 2019. doi: 10.1109/JPROC. 2019.2898267

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc 2019

  31. [31]

    Component-based robotics.IEEE Robotics & Automation Mag- azine, 17(1):99–111, 2010

    Davide Brugali and Azamat Shakhimardanov. Component-based robotics.IEEE Robotics & Automation Mag- azine, 17(1):99–111, 2010. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2010.936952

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2010.936952 2010

  32. [32]

    Model-based development of QoS- aware reconfigurable autonomous robotic systems

    Davide Brugali, Rafael Capilla, Raffaela Mirandola, and Catia Trubiani. Model-based development of QoS- aware reconfigurable autonomous robotic systems. In2018 Second IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC), pages 129–136, New York, NY , USA, 2018. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/IRC.2018.00027

    work page doi:10.1109/irc.2018.00027 2018

  33. [33]

    Future directions in software engineering for autonomous robots: An agenda for trustworthiness [opinion].IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 31(3):186–204, 2024

    Davide Brugali, Ana Cavalcanti, Nico Hochgeschwender, Patrizio Pelliccione, and Luciana Rebelo. Future directions in software engineering for autonomous robots: An agenda for trustworthiness [opinion].IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 31(3):186–204, 2024. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2024.3417089

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2024.3417089 2024

  34. [34]

    Modular deep reinforcement learning for continuous motion planning with temporal logic.IEEE robotics and automation letters, 6(4):7973–7980, 2021

    Mingyu Cai, Mohammadhosein Hasanbeig, Shaoping Xiao, Alessandro Abate, and Zhen Kan. Modular deep reinforcement learning for continuous motion planning with temporal logic.IEEE robotics and automation letters, 6(4):7973–7980, 2021. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2021.3101544

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3101544 2021

  35. [35]

    Runtime verification and field-based testing for ros-based robotic systems.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 50(10):2544–2567, 2024

    Ricardo Caldas, Juan Antonio Pi ˜nera Garc´ıa, Matei Schiopu, Patrizio Pelliccione, Gena ´ına Rodrigues, and Thorsten Berger. Runtime verification and field-based testing for ros-based robotic systems.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 50(10):2544–2567, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2024.3444697

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3444697 2024

  36. [36]

    Software engineering for collective cyber-physical ecosystems.ACM Trans

    Roberto Casadei, Gianluca Aguzzi, Giorgio Audrito, Ferruccio Damiani, Danilo Pianini, Giordano Scarso, Gianluca Torta, and Mirko Viroli. Software engineering for collective cyber-physical ecosystems.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 34(5), May 2025. ISSN 1049-331X. doi: 10.1145/3712004. 31 Sartaj et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3712004 2025

  37. [37]

    Model-driven engineering for mobile robotic systems: a systematic mapping study.Software and Systems Modeling, 21(1):19–49, 2022

    Giuseppina Lucia Casalaro, Giulio Cattivera, Federico Ciccozzi, Ivano Malavolta, Andreas Wortmann, and Pa- trizio Pelliccione. Model-driven engineering for mobile robotic systems: a systematic mapping study.Software and Systems Modeling, 21(1):19–49, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10270-021-00908-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-021-00908-8 2022

  38. [38]

    RoboStar technology: a roboticist’s toolbox for combined proof, simulation, and testing.Software Engineering for Robotics, pages 249–293, 2021

    Ana Cavalcanti, Will Barnett, James Baxter, Gustavo Carvalho, Madiel Conserva Filho, Alvaro Miyazawa, Pe- dro Ribeiro, and Augusto Sampaio. RoboStar technology: a roboticist’s toolbox for combined proof, simulation, and testing.Software Engineering for Robotics, pages 249–293, 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66494-7 9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66494-7 2021

  39. [39]

    AC-ROS: Assurance case driven adaptation for the robot operating system

    Betty HC Cheng, Robert Jared Clark, Jonathon Emil Fleck, Michael Austin Langford, and Philip K McKin- ley. AC-ROS: Assurance case driven adaptation for the robot operating system. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 102–113, New York, NY , USA, 2020. Association for Computing...

    work page doi:10.1145/3365438.3410952 2020

  40. [40]

    A survey on testbench-based vehicle-in-the-loop simulation testing for autonomous vehicles: Architecture, principle, and equipment.Advanced Intelligent Systems, 6(6):2300778, 2024

    Jingjun Cheng, Zhen Wang, Xiangmo Zhao, Zhigang Xu, Ming Ding, and Kazuya Takeda. A survey on testbench-based vehicle-in-the-loop simulation testing for autonomous vehicles: Architecture, principle, and equipment.Advanced Intelligent Systems, 6(6):2300778, 2024. doi: 10.1002/aisy.202300778

    work page doi:10.1002/aisy.202300778 2024

  41. [41]

    Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: A second research roadmap

    Rog ´erio De Lemos, Holger Giese, Hausi A M ¨uller, Mary Shaw, Jesper Andersson, Marin Litoiu, Bradley Schmerl, Gabriel Tamura, Norha M Villegas, Thomas V ogel, et al. Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: A second research roadmap. InSoftware Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II: International Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, October 24-2...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35813-5 2010

  42. [42]

    Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems.Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 77:1–14, 2016

    Louise Dennis, Michael Fisher, Marija Slavkovik, and Matt Webster. Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems.Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 77:1–14, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012 2016

  43. [43]

    Dhouib, S

    S. Dhouib, S. Kchir, S. Stinckwich, T. Ziadi, and M. Ziane. RobotML, a Domain-Specific Language to De- sign, Simulate and Deploy Robotic Applications. InSIMPAR 2012, pages 149–160, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Architecture-driven self-adaptation and self-management in robotics systems

    George Edwards, Joshua Garcia, Hossein Tajalli, Daniel Popescu, Nenad Medvidovic, Gaurav Sukhatme, and Brad Petrus. Architecture-driven self-adaptation and self-management in robotics systems. In2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, pages 142–151, New York, NY , USA, 2009. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/SEAMS.2009.5069083

    work page doi:10.1109/seams.2009.5069083 2009

  45. [46]

    Cyber-physical systems: challenge of the 21st century.e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, 133(7):299–303, 2016

    Lukas Esterle and Radu Grosu. Cyber-physical systems: challenge of the 21st century.e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, 133(7):299–303, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00502-016-0426-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00502-016-0426-6 2016

  46. [47]

    Lukas Esterle and David W. King. Loosening control—a hybrid approach to controlling heterogeneous swarms. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 16(2), March 2022. ISSN 1556-4665. doi: 10.1145/ 3502725

    work page 2022

  47. [48]

    Verification and uncertainties in self-integrating system

    Lukas Esterle, Barry Porter, and Jim Woodcock. Verification and uncertainties in self-integrating system. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing and Self-Organizing Systems Companion (ACSOS-C), pages 220–225, New York, NY , USA, 2021. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ACSOS-C52956.2021.00050

    work page doi:10.1109/acsos-c52956.2021.00050 2021

  48. [49]

    De- veloping a physical and digital twin: an example process model

    Hao Feng, Cl ´audio Gomes, Michael Sandberg, Casper Thule, Kenneth Lausdahl, and Peter Gorm Larsen. De- veloping a physical and digital twin: an example process model. In2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C), pages 286–295, New York, NY , USA, 2021. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/MODELS-C53483.2021.00050

    work page doi:10.1109/models-c53483.2021.00050 2021

  49. [50]

    Mikkelsen, Daniella Tola, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Michael Sandberg

    Hao Feng, Claudio Gomes, Santiago Gil, Peter H. Mikkelsen, Daniella Tola, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Michael Sandberg. Integration of the mape-k loop in digital twins. In2022 Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM), pages 102–113, New York, NY , USA, July 2022. IEEE. doi: 10.23919/annsim55834.2022.9859489

    work page doi:10.23919/annsim55834.2022.9859489 2022

  50. [51]

    N. Feng, L. Marsso, S. G. Yaman, B. Townsend, A. L. C. Cavalcanti, R. Calinescu, and M. Chechik. Towards a Formal Framework for Normative Requirements Elicitation. InAutomated Software Engineering, Conference Publishing Services, pages 1776–1780, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE

    work page 2023

  51. [52]

    N. Feng, L. Marsso, S. G. Yaman, Y . Baatartogtokh, R. Ayad, V . O. D. Mello, B. Townsend, I. Standen, I. Stefanakos, C. Imrie, G. N. Rodrigues, A. L. C. Cavalcanti, R. Calinescu, and M. Chechik. Analyzing and Debugging Normative Requirements via Satisfiability Checking. InIEEE/ACM 46th International Con- ference on Software Engineering, New York, NY , US...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597503.3639093 2024

  52. [53]

    Larsen, and Marcel Verhoef.Collaborative Design for Embedded Systems: Co- modelling and Co-simulation

    John Fitzgerald, Peter G. Larsen, and Marcel Verhoef.Collaborative Design for Embedded Systems: Co- modelling and Co-simulation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54118-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54118-6 2014

  53. [54]

    Springer, Switzerland, 2024

    John Fitzgerald, Cl ´audio Gomes, and Peter Gorm Larsen, editors.The Engineering of Digital Twins. Springer, Switzerland, 2024. ISBN 978-3-031-66718-3

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for ai

    Jessica Fjeld, Nele Achten, Hannah Hilligoss, Adam Nagy, and Madhulika Srikumar. Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for ai. Technical Report 2020-1, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Cambridge, MA, 2020. URLhttps://dash.harvard. edu/handle/1/42160420

    work page 2020

  55. [56]

    Subcommittee SC 7, and systems engineering.Systems and Software Engineering: Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE): System and Software Quality Models

    International Organization for Standardization, Software Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology. Subcommittee SC 7, and systems engineering.Systems and Software Engineering: Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE): System and Software Quality Models. ISO, Switzer- land, 2011

    work page 2011

  56. [57]

    Foughali, B

    M. Foughali, B. Berthomieu, S. Dal Zilio, F. Ingrand, and A. Mallet. Model Checking Real-Time Properties on the Functional Layer of Autonomous Robots. InFormal Methods and Soft. Eng., pages 383–399, Cham, 2016. Springer

    work page 2016

  57. [58]

    Ethics of autonomous collective decision-making: The caesar framework.Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(6):61, 2022

    Mirgita Frasheri, Vaclav Struhar, Alessandro Vittorio Papadopoulos, and Aida Causevic. Ethics of autonomous collective decision-making: The caesar framework.Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(6):61, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00414-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-022-00414-0 2022

  58. [59]

    Fuller, Z

    A. Fuller, Z. Fan, C. Day, and C. Barlow. Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access, 8:108952–108971, 2020. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2020.2998358 2020

  59. [60]

    Robotics software engineering: A perspective from the service robotics domain

    Sergio Garc ´ıa, Daniel Str¨uber, Davide Brugali, Thorsten Berger, and Patrizio Pelliccione. Robotics software engineering: A perspective from the service robotics domain. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 593–604, New York, NY , USA, 2020...

    work page doi:10.1145/3368089.3409743 2020

  60. [61]

    Giese and W

    H. Giese and W. Sch ¨afer. Model-Driven Development of Safe Self-optimizing Mechatronic Systems with MechatronicUML. In J. C ´amara, R. Lemos, C. Ghezzi, and A. Lopes, editors,Assurances for Self-Adaptive Systems - Principles, Models, and Techniques, volume 7740 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 152–

    work page

  61. [62]

    Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013

    work page 2013

  62. [63]

    Toward a systematic reporting framework for digital twins: a cooperative robotics case study.SIMULATION, 101(3):313–339, 2025

    Santiago Gil, Bentley J Oakes, Cl ´audio Gomes, Mirgita Frasheri, and Peter G Larsen. Toward a systematic reporting framework for digital twins: a cooperative robotics case study.SIMULATION, 101(3):313–339, 2025. doi: 10.1177/00375497241261406. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1177/00375497241261406

    work page doi:10.1177/00375497241261406 2025

  63. [64]

    Modular robot systems.IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 17(3):38–55,

    Kyle Gilpin and Daniela Rus. Modular robot systems.IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 17(3):38–55,

    work page

  64. [65]

    doi: 10.1109/MRA.2010.937859

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2010.937859 2010

  65. [66]

    Gobillot, C

    N. Gobillot, C. Lesire, and D. Doose. A modeling framework for software architecture specification and val- idation. In D. Brugali, J. F. Broenink, T. Kroeger, and B. A. MacDonald, editors,Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots, pages 303–314, Cham, 2014. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2014

  66. [67]

    Co-simulation: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 51(3):1–33, May 2018

    Cl ´audio Gomes, Casper Thule, David Broman, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Hans Vangheluwe. Co-simulation: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 51(3):1–33, May 2018. ISSN 1557-7341. doi: 10.1145/3179993

    work page doi:10.1145/3179993 2018

  67. [68]

    The fmi 3.0 standard interface for clocked and scheduled simulations

    Cl ´audio Gomes, Torsten Blochwitz, Christian Bertsch, Karl Wernersson, Klaus Schuch, Pierre R., Oliver Kotte, Irina Zacharias, Matthias Blesken, Torsten Sommer, Masoud Najafi, and Andreas Junghanns. The fmi 3.0 standard interface for clocked and scheduled simulations. InProceedings of 14th Modelica Conference 2021, Link¨oping, Sweden, September 20-24, 20...

    work page doi:10.3384/ecp2118127 2021

  68. [69]

    Berkay Celik, Mauricio Castillo-Effen, Nikolaus Cor- rell, Pooyan Jamshidi, Morgan Quigley, Trenton Tabor, and Qi Zhu

    Claire Le Goues, Sebastian Elbaum, David Anthony, Z. Berkay Celik, Mauricio Castillo-Effen, Nikolaus Cor- rell, Pooyan Jamshidi, Morgan Quigley, Trenton Tabor, and Qi Zhu. Software engineering for robotics: Fu- ture research directions; report from the 2023 workshop on software engineering for robotics, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12317

    work page arXiv 2023

  69. [70]

    Can LLMs make robots smarter?Communications of the ACM, 68(2):11–13, 2025

    Samuel Greengard. Can llms make robots smarter?Communications of the ACM, 68(2):11–13, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3701227

    work page doi:10.1145/3701227 2025

  70. [71]

    P. Han, A. L. Ellefsen, G. Li, V . Æsøy, and H. Zhang. Fault prognostics using lstm networks: application to marine diesel engine.IEEE Sensors Journal, 21(22):25986–25994, 2021

    work page 2021

  71. [72]

    Mask r-cnn.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(2):386–397, 2020

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Mask r-cnn.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(2):386–397, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2844175. 33 Sartaj et al

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2018.2844175 2020

  72. [73]

    Mu- tation testing for RoboChart.Software Engineering for Robotics, pages 345–375, 2021

    Robert M Hierons, Maciej Gazda, Pablo G ´omez-Abajo, Raluca Lefticaru, and Mercedes G Merayo. Mu- tation testing for RoboChart.Software Engineering for Robotics, pages 345–375, 2021. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-66494-7 11

    work page 2021

  73. [74]

    Hoebert, W

    T. Hoebert, W. Lepuschitz, E. List, and M. Merdan. Cloud-based digital twin for industrial robotics. InIndus- trial Applications of Holonic and Multi-Agent Systems: 9th International Conference, HoloMAS 2019, Linz, Austria, August 26–29, 2019, Proceedings 9, pages 105–116. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,

    work page 2019

  74. [75]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25894-3 9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25894-3

  75. [76]

    A safety and security requirements management methodology in reconfigurable collaborative human-robot application

    Ali M Hosseini, Clara Fischer, Mukund Bhole, Wolfgang Kastner, Thilo Sauter, and Sebastian Schlund. A safety and security requirements management methodology in reconfigurable collaborative human-robot application. In2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS), pages 1–8, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/WFC...

    work page doi:10.1109/wfcs57264.2023.10144233 2023

  76. [77]

    The effect and selection of solution sequence in co-simulation

    Emin Oguz Inci, Jan Croes, Wim Desmet, Claudio Gomes, Casper Thule, Kenneth Lausdahl, and Pe- ter Gorm Larsen. The effect and selection of solution sequence in co-simulation. In2021 Annual Mod- eling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM), pages 1–12, New York, NY , USA, July 2021. IEEE. doi: 10.23919/annsim52504.2021.9552130

    work page doi:10.23919/annsim52504.2021.9552130 2021

  77. [78]

    Error estimators for adaptive scheduling algo- rithm for serial co-simulation

    Emin Oguz Inci, Wim Desmet, Cl ´audio Gomes, and Jan Croes. Error estimators for adaptive scheduling algo- rithm for serial co-simulation. In2023 Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM), pages 73–83, New York, NY , USA, 2023. IEEE

    work page 2023

  78. [79]

    Towards the automatic generation of self-adaptive robotics software: An experience report

    Juan F Ingl ´es-Romero, Cristina Vicente-Chicote, Brice Morin, and Olivier Barais. Towards the automatic generation of self-adaptive robotics software: An experience report. In2011 IEEE 20th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pages 79–86, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

  79. [80]

    doi: 10.1109/WETICE.2011.54

    IEEE. doi: 10.1109/WETICE.2011.54

    work page doi:10.1109/wetice.2011.54 2011

  80. [81]

    Using models@ runtime for designing adaptive robotics software: an experience report

    Juan Francisco Ingl ´es Romero, Cristina Vicente Chicote, Brice Morin, and Olivier Barais. Using models@ runtime for designing adaptive robotics software: an experience report. InInternational Workshop on Model Based Engineering for Robotics, pages 1–11, Oslo, Norway, 2010. Laurent Riox

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.