Cyber-Physical System: History
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor: , , , , , ,

Cyber-Physical System (CPS) is a symbol of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) by integrating physical and computational processes which can associate with humans in various ways. In short, the relationship between Cyber networks and the physical component is known as CPS, which is assisting to incorporate the world and influencing our ordinary life significantly. In terms of practical utilization of CPS interacting abundant difficulties. CPS is involved in modern society very vastly with many uptrend perspectives. All the new technologies by using CPS are accelerating our journey of innovation. Researchers have explained the research areas of 14 important domains of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) including aircraft transportation systems, battlefield surveillance, chemical production, energy, agriculture (food supply), healthcare, education, industrial automation, manufacturing, mobile devices, robotics, transportation, and vehicular. 

  • 3C
  • 5C
  • NIFU
  • Cyber Physical System
  • 14 domains of CPS

1. Introduction

The Cyber-Physical System (CPS) is the key concept of Industry 4.0, which the German government advocates for to develop smart factories and fetch in the 4th industrial revolution. When an NFS session was organized in Austin, Texas, the United States in 2006, the concept of CPS officially emerged [1]. Industry 1.0 was about mechanization and steam power, and then mass production and assembly line which was known as Industry 2.0, and digitalization and automation are Industry 3.0, and finally, Industry 4.0 is planned for the distributed engender through shared amenities in the combined global industrial structure for on-demand manufacturing to succeed personalization and resource efficiency [2]. It has far-reaching consequences for both producers and consumers. The term Industry 4.0 refers to a trend in industrial automation that incorporates some new technologies to improve worker health at work, as well as plant productivity and quality.
The smart factory approach is part of Industry 4.0 and is divided into three categories including smart production, smart services, and smart energy. From the previous statement, it is clear that energy conservation is a concern in any sort of factory. This is because the end product must be produced at a low cost while maintaining high quality. As a result, energy conservation boosts productivity and maybe creates job opportunities. The Cyber-Physical System is a major idea in Industry 4.0. [3]. CPS are advanced technologies that connect physical reality operations with computing and network infrastructure [4]. With typically integrated devices, which are supposed to function like independent devices, CPS focuses on connecting multiple devices [5]. A CPS comprises a monitoring system, generally, one or even more microcontrollers that regulate and transmit the information acquired from the sensors and actuators required to deal with the actual environment. A communication interface is also required for such embedded systems to share information with other embedded systems or the cloud. The most significant element of a CPS is information interchange, because information may be connected and analyzed centrally. A CPS, to look at it another way, is an embedded system that can communicate with other devices via a network. The Internet of things [6] is a term used to describe CPS that are hooked up to the internet. With integrated technology, the Internet of Things (IoT) will connect all the company’s elements, machinery, and Goods.
Herein, the research areas of 14 important domains of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are explained, including aircraft transportation systems, battlefield surveillance, chemical production, energy, agriculture (food supply), healthcare, education, industrial automation, manufacturing, mobile devices, robotics, transportation, and vehicular. Challenges and future direction are demonstrated. Almost all articles have limitations on security, data privacy, and safety. Several projects and new dimensions are mentioned where CPS is the key integration. Consequently, the researchers and academicians will be benefited to update the CPS workspace and it will help them with more research on a specific topic of CPS. 
The common acronyms used in CPS field are tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1. Used and known Acronym about Cyber Physical System.
Acronym Full Form Acronym Full Form
CPS Cyber Physical System NFS National Science Foundation
IOT Internet of Things IOS Internet of Services
IOD Internet of Data OCS Oriented Cuckoo Search
3C Computing, Communication, Control IDS Intrusion Detection Systems
RTLS Real-Time Location Sensing WoT Web of Things
NoC Network-On-Chip KF Kalman Filter
ACPS Aviation Cyber Physical System UAVs Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
CPPS Cyber Physical Production System ECPS Energy Cyber Physical System
PHEVs Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles HESS Hybrid Energy Storage System
SeDS Sensor-Drone-Satellite ICT Information & Communication Technology
MDR Monitoring detecting responding CCP Collaborative Control Protocol
MCPS Medical Cyber-Physical System EHR Electronic Health Record
MPPT maximum power point tracking IASs Industrial automation systems
ICPS Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems IAS Industrial Automation and Software
CPSSs Cyber-physical product-service systems RE Requirements Engineering
PHM prognostics and health management DTs Digital Twins
TCPS Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems DEDR Dynamic En-route Decision real-time Route
CF car-following EV Electric Vehicle
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems FC Fog Computing
SA Smart Agriculture SCSAS Smartphone based construction site safety awareness system
3C Computation, Communication, and Control 5C Connection, Conversion, Cyber, Cognition and Configuration
    NIFU Network, Intelligence, Functionality, and User friendliness)

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/systems11040208


  1. Jiang, J.R. An improved cyber-physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0 smart factories. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2018, 10, 1687814018784192.
  2. Cicconi, P.; Russo, A.C.; Germani, M.; Prist, M.; Pallotta, E.; Monteriu, A. Cyber-physical system integration for industry 4.0: Modelling and simulation of an induction heating process for aluminium-steel molds in footwear soles manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 3rd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry (RTSI), Modena, Italy, 11–13 September 2017; pp. 1–6.
  3. Brettel, M.; Friederichsen, N.; Keller, M.; Rosenberg, M. How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective. FormaMente 2017, 12, 37–44.
  4. Jazdi, N. Cyber physical systems in the context of Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 22–24 May 2014; pp. 1–4.
  5. Darwish, A.; Hassanien, A.E. Cyber Physical Systems Design, Methodology, and Integration: The Current Status and Future Outlook. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2018, 9, 1541–1556.
  6. Pivoto, D.G.; de Almeida, L.F.; da Rosa Righi, R.; Rodrigues, J.J.; Lugli, A.B.; Alberti, A.M. Cyber-physical systems architectures for industrial internet of things applications in Industry 4.0: A literature review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 58, 176–192.
  7. Czekster, R.M.; Metere, R.; Morisset, C. Incorporating Cyber Threat Intelligence into Complex Cyber-Physical Systems: A STIX Model for Active Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5005.
  8. Lee, J.; Bagheri, B.; Kao, H.A. A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 2015, 3, 18–23.
  9. Kos, A.; Tomažič, S.; Salom, J.; Trifunovic, N.; Valero, M.; Milutinovic, V. New benchmarking methodology and programming model for big data processing. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2015, 11, 271752.
  10. Islam, M.M.; Uddin, J.; Kashem, M.A.; Rabbi, F.; Hasnat, M.W. Design and implementation of an IoT system for predicting aqua fisheries using arduino and KNN. In Proceedings of the Intelligent Human Computer Interaction: 12th International Conference, IHCI 2020, Daegu, Republic of Korea, 24–26 November 2020; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 108–118.
  11. Reis, J.Z.; Gonçalves, R.F. The role of internet of services (ios) on industry 4.0 through the service oriented architecture (soa). In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 26–30 August 2018; pp. 20–26.
  12. Shafiq, S.I.; Szczerbicki, E.; Sanin, C. Manufacturing data analysis in internet of things/internet of data (IoT/IoD) scenario. Cybern. Syst. 2018, 49, 280–295.
  13. Kocabay, A.; Javadi, H. Cyber-Physical Systems—Manufacturing Applications. In Industry 4.0; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2023; pp. 35–56.
  14. Turygin, Y.; Božek, P.; Nikitin, Y.; Sosnovich, E.; Abramov, A. Enhancing the reliability of mobile robots control process via reverse validation. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2016, 13, 1729881416680521.
  15. Božek, P.; Bezák, P.; Nikitin, Y.; Fedorko, G.; Fabian, M. Increasing the production system productivity using inertial navigation. Manuf. Technol. 2015, 15, 274–278.
  16. Colombo, A.W.; Karnouskos, S.; Kaynak, O.; Shi, Y.; Yin, S. Industrial cyberphysical systems: A backbone of the fourth industrial revolution. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2017, 11, 6–16.
  17. Leitao, P.; Karnouskos, S.; Ribeiro, L.; Lee, J.; Strasser, T.; Colombo, A.W. Smart agents in industrial cyber–physical systems. Proc. IEEE 2016, 104, 1086–1101.
  18. Ding, D.; Han, Q.L.; Wang, Z.; Ge, X. A survey on model-based distributed control and filtering for industrial cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 2483–2499.
  19. Jiang, X.; Li, S. Plume front tracking in unknown environments by estimation and control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 15, 911–921.
  20. Wang, L.; Törngren, M.; Onori, M. Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 517–527.
  21. Cassoli, B.B.; Jourdan, N.; Nguyen, P.H.; Sen, S.; Garcia-Ceja, E.; Metternich, J. Frameworks for data-driven quality management in cyber-physical systems for manufacturing: A systematic review. Procedia CIRP 2022, 112, 567–572.
  22. Napoleone, A.; Negri, E.; Macchi, M.; Pozzetti, A. How the technologies underlying cyber-physical systems support the reconfigurability capability in manufacturing: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 61, 3122–3144.
  23. Zhu, Q.; Rieger, C.; Başar, T. A hierarchical security architecture for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 2011 4th International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems, Boise, ID, USA, 9–11 August 2011; pp. 15–20.
  24. Senyondo, H. Formal Analysis and Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems for the Smart Grid. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA, 2015.
  25. Chen, S.; Ma, M.; Luo, Z. An authentication scheme with identity-based cryptography for M2M security in cyber-physical systems. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2016, 9, 1146–1157.
  26. Kalogeras, G.; Anagnostopoulos, C.; Alexakos, C.; Kalogeras, A.; Mylonas, G. Cyber Physical Systems for Smarter Society: A use case in the manufacturing sector. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 13–15 August 2021; pp. 371–376.
  27. Passarini, R.F.; Farines, J.M.; Fernandes, J.M.; Becker, L.B. Cyber-physical systems design: Transition from functional to architectural models. Des. Autom. Embed. Syst. 2015, 19, 345–366.
  28. Zhang, Y.; Xu, Q.; Guan, X.; Chen, C.; Li, M. Wireless/wired integrated transmission for industrial cyber-physical systems: Risk-sensitive co-design of 5G and TSN protocols. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2022, 65, 1–16.
  29. Hasan, M.K.; Habib, A.A.; Shukur, Z.; Ibrahim, F.; Islam, S.; Razzaque, M.A. Review on cyber-physical and cyber-security system in smart grid: Standards, protocols, constraints, and recommendations. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2022, 209, 103540.
  30. Bordel, B.; Alcarria, R.; Martín, D.; Robles, T.; de Rivera, D.S. Self-configuration in humanized cyber-physical systems. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2017, 8, 485–496.
  31. Bradley, J.M.; Atkins, E.M. Optimization and control of cyber-physical vehicle systems. Sensors 2015, 15, 23020–23049.
  32. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Mohammad, N.; Sallam, K.; Moustafa, N. An Adaptive Cuckoo Search-Based Optimization Model for Addressing Cyber-Physical Security Problems. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1140.
  33. Huang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Cheng, B.; Lin, C.; Chen, J. A PetriNet-based approach for supporting traceability in cyber-physical manufacturing systems. Sensors 2016, 16, 382.
  34. Niggemann, O.; Frey, C. Data-driven anomaly detection in cyber-physical production systems. at-Automatisierungstechnik 2015, 63, 821–832.
  35. Yang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Yu, W.; An, D.; Yang, X.; Lin, J. On data integrity attacks against optimal power flow in power grid systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2017; pp. 1008–1009.
  36. Du, C.; Tan, L.; Dong, Y. Period selection for integrated controller tasks in cyber-physical systems. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2015, 28, 894–902.
  37. Bai, Y.; Park, J.; Tehranipoor, M.; Forte, D. Real-time instruction-level verification of remote IoT/CPS devices via side channels. Discov. Internet Things 2022, 2, 1–19.
  38. Chen, L.; Yue, D.; Dou, C.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, J. Robustness of cyber-physical power systems in cascading failure: Survival of interdependent clusters. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 114, 105374.
  39. Shakshuki, E.M.; Malik, H.; Sheltami, T. WSN in cyber physical systems: Enhanced energy management routing approach using software agents. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2014, 31, 93–104.
  40. Zeng, J.; Yang, L.T.; Ma, J. A system-level modeling and design for cyber-physical-social systems. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 2016, 15, 1–26.
  41. Ali, S.; Qaisar, S.B.; Saeed, H.; Farhan Khan, M.; Naeem, M.; Anpalagan, A. Network challenges for cyber physical systems with tiny wireless devices: A case study on reliable pipeline condition monitoring. Sensors 2015, 15, 7172–7205.
  42. Huang, S.; Tao, M. Competitive swarm optimizer based gateway deployment algorithm in cyber-physical systems. Sensors 2017, 17, 209.
  43. Huang, R.; Chu, X.; Zhang, J.; Hu, Y.H. Scale-free topology optimization for software-defined wireless sensor networks: A cyber-physical system. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2017, 13, 1550147717713626.
  44. Singh, H. Big data, industry 4.0 and cyber-physical systems integration: A smart industry context. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 46, 157–162.
  45. Bhuiyan, M.Z.A.; Wu, J.; Wang, G.; Cao, J. Sensing and decision making in cyber-physical systems: The case of structural event monitoring. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2016, 12, 2103–2114.
  46. De Persis, C.; Postoyan, R. A Lyapunov redesign of coordination algorithms for cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2016, 62, 808–823.
  47. Cao, X.; Cheng, P.; Chen, J.; Ge, S.S.; Cheng, Y.; Sun, Y. Cognitive radio based state estimation in cyber-physical systems. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2014, 32, 489–502.
  48. Deshmukh, S.; Natarajan, B.; Pahwa, A. State estimation over a lossy network in spatially distributed cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2014, 62, 3911–3923.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service