Patent Publication Number: US-11665017-B2

Title: Telemetry reporting in vehicle super resolution systems

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD 
     The present disclosure relates generally to computer networks, and, more particularly, to telemetry reporting in vehicle super resolution systems. 
     BACKGROUND 
     In recent years, the amount and type of data collected by cloud-based services and data centers from edge devices has been increasing significantly. This is particularly true in the case of edge devices, such as passenger and commercial vehicles. For example, a vehicle of the future may produce multiple terabytes (TBs) of data per day. However, many existing gateways do not support the size requirements of this additional data. Notably, a typical mobile gateway operates over a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) cellular connection at the lower Megabits range speed. For example, consider a Lidar sensor in a vehicle that produces over 2 TB of data per day. In such a case, it would be impractical to transmit this data over an existing Gigabit switch. With the ongoing efforts to develop smart cars and autonomous vehicles, as well as to outfit vehicles with more and more sensors, these data requirements will only continue to increase, placing an increasing burden on the communication infrastructure. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The embodiments herein may be better understood by referring to the following description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which like reference numerals indicate identically or functionally similar elements, of which: 
         FIGS.  1 A- 1 B  illustrate an example communication system; 
         FIG.  2    illustrates an example network device/node; 
         FIG.  3    illustrates an example architecture for vehicle telematics with super resolution; 
         FIGS.  4 A- 4 B  illustrate an example of a vehicle providing data to a receiver application; 
         FIG.  5    illustrates an example of data conversion in a vehicle; and 
         FIGS.  6 A- 6 C  illustrate examples of an update being sent in a two point simulation system; 
         FIG.  7    illustrates an example of multiplexing samples with different sampling rates; and 
         FIG.  8    illustrates an example simplified procedure for telemetry reporting in a super resolution system. 
     
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS 
     Overview 
     According to one or more embodiments of the disclosure, a processor of a vehicle is detects a difference between a physical characteristic of the vehicle predicted by a first machine learning-based model and a physical characteristic of the vehicle indicated by telemetry data generated by a sub-system of the vehicle. The processor forms a packet payload of an update packet indicative of the detected difference, based in part on a relevancy of the physical characteristic to the first machine learning-based model. The processor applies a synchronization strategy to the update packet, to synchronize the update packet with a second machine learning-based model executed by a receiver. The processor sends the update packet to the receiver via a network, to update the second machine learning-based model. 
     Description 
     A computer network is a geographically distributed collection of nodes interconnected by communication links and segments for transporting data between end nodes, such as personal computers and workstations, or other devices, such as sensors, etc. Many types of networks are available, ranging from local area networks (LANs) to wide area networks (WANs). LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus. WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links, such as common carrier telephone lines, optical lightpaths, synchronous optical networks (SONET), synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) links, and others. 
     Smart object networks, such as sensor networks, in particular, are a specific type of network having spatially distributed autonomous devices such as sensors, actuators, etc., that cooperatively monitor physical or environmental conditions at different locations, such as, e.g., energy/power consumption, resource consumption (e.g., water/gas/etc. for advanced metering infrastructure or “AMI” applications) temperature, pressure, vibration, sound, radiation, motion, pollutants, etc. Other types of smart objects is include actuators, e.g., responsible for turning on/off an engine or perform any other actions. Sensor networks, a type of smart object network, are typically shared-media networks, such as wireless or power-line communication (PLC) networks. That is, in addition to one or more sensors, each sensor device (node) in a sensor network may generally be equipped with a radio transceiver or other communication port, a microcontroller, and an energy source, such as a battery. Often, smart object networks are considered field area networks (FANs), neighborhood area networks (NANs), etc. Generally, size and cost constraints on smart object nodes (e.g., sensors) result in corresponding constraints on resources such as energy, memory, computational speed and bandwidth. 
     Networks may also be, or may include, an “Internet of Things” or “IoT” network. Loosely, the term “Internet of Things” or “IoT” may be used by those in the art to refer to uniquely identifiable objects (things) and their virtual representations in a network-based architecture. In particular, the next frontier in the evolution of the Internet is the ability to connect more than just computers and communications devices, but rather the ability to connect “objects” in general, such as lights, appliances, vehicles, HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning), windows and window shades and blinds, doors, locks, etc. The “Internet of Things” thus generally refers to the interconnection of objects (e.g., smart objects), such as sensors and actuators, over a computer network (e.g., IP), which may be the Public Internet or a private network. Such devices have been used in the industry for decades, usually in the form of non-IP or proprietary protocols that are connected to IP networks by way of protocol translation gateways. With the emergence of a myriad of applications, such as the smart grid, smart cities, and building and industrial automation, and cars (e.g., that can interconnect millions of objects for sensing things like power quality, tire pressure, and temperature and that can actuate engines and lights), it has been of the utmost importance to extend the IP protocol suite for these networks. 
     Serial networks are another type of network, different from an IP network, typically forming a localized network in a given environment, such as for automotive or is vehicular networks, industrial networks, entertainment system networks, and so on. For example, those skilled in the art will be familiar with the on-board diagnostics (OBD) protocol (a serial network which supports a vehicle&#39;s self-diagnostic and reporting capability, including the upgraded “OBD II” protocol), the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus (or CANBUS) protocol (a message-based protocol to allow microcontrollers and devices to communicate with each other in applications without a host computer), and the MOBIUS protocol (a serial communications protocol for use with programmable logic controllers, such as for remote terminal units (RTUs) in supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems). Unlike an IP-based network, which uses a shared and open addressing scheme, a serial communication network generally is based on localized and proprietary communication standards, where commands or data are transmitted based on localized device identifiers, such as parameter identifiers (PIDs), localized station addresses, and so on. 
       FIG.  1 A  illustrates an example communication system  100  illustratively comprising an Internet Protocol (IP) network  110  and a serial network/bus  115 , along with a gateway (or other network device)  120  interconnecting the two networks, as described in greater detail below. Serial network  115 , in particular, illustratively comprises one or more endpoints  130  (e.g., a set of one or more controlled devices, sensors, actuators, controllers, processors, and so on), such as part of a vehicular network, an industrial network, etc. The endpoints may be interconnected by various methods of serial communication. For instance, the serial network/bus  115  may allow the endpoints  130  to communicate serial data  155  (e.g., commands, sensor data, etc.) using predefined serial network communication protocols (e.g., OBD, CANBUS, MOBIUS, etc.). In this context, a serial network protocol consists of a set of rules defining how the endpoints interact within the serial network  115 . 
     IP network  110 , on the other hand, illustratively comprises links interconnecting one or more devices through a network of routers or switches. For example, a set of one or more servers (or controllers)  140 , one or more end devices (e.g., user devices, workstations, etc.)  142 , and one or more other application devices  144  may be is interconnected with the IP network  110 . The devices, generally, may be interconnected by various methods of IP-based communication. For instance, the links may be wired links or shared media (e.g., wireless links, PLC links, etc.) where certain devices may be in communication with other devices, e.g., based on distance, signal strength, current operational status, location, etc. IP data packets  150  (e.g., traffic and/or messages sent between the devices/nodes) may be exchanged among the nodes/devices of the IP network  110  using predefined IP network communication protocols such as the transmission control protocol (TCP), TCP/IP, user datagram protocol (UDP), or other protocols where appropriate. In this context, an IP network protocol consists of a set of rules defining how the nodes interact with each other over the IP network  110 . 
     As described below, the gateway device  120  illustratively bridges both the IP network  110  and serial network  115 , and as such may be considered to be a part of either or each network, accordingly. Further, those skilled in the art will understand that any number of nodes, devices, links, endpoints, etc. may be used in the computer system  100 , and that the view shown herein is for simplicity. Also, those skilled in the art will further understand that while the system is shown in a certain orientation, system  100  is merely an example illustration that is not meant to limit the disclosure. 
       FIG.  1 B  illustrates one potential implementation of communication system  100 , according to various embodiments. As shown, assume that system  100  includes a vehicle  102  in which serial network/bus  115  and gateway  120  are located. For example, many passenger vehicles now include a CANBus-based serial network that connects any number of endpoint sensors and/or actuators (endpoints  130 ). To connect the serial network  115  of vehicle  102  to IP network  110 , gateway  120  resident on vehicle  102  may communicate remotely with a wireless access point (AP)  105 . For example, vehicle  102  may be in remote communication with a cellular transceiver, Wi-Fi hotspot, or the like, to connect vehicle  102  with network  110 . In further embodiments, vehicle  102  may instead be in communication with network  110  via a wired connection. For example, vehicle  102  may be connected to network  110  during charging (e.g., in the case an electric or hybrid electric vehicle), storage, repair, or the like. 
       FIG.  2    is a schematic block diagram of an example node/device  200  that may be used with one or more embodiments described herein, e.g., as any of the nodes/devices shown in  FIG.  1    above, particularly as the gateway device  120  as described herein. The device may comprise one or more network interfaces  210  (e.g., wired, wireless, PLC, etc.), at least one processor  220 , and a memory  240  interconnected by a system bus  250 , as well as a power supply  260  (e.g., battery, plug-in, etc.). 
     Network interface(s)  210  include the mechanical, electrical, and signaling circuitry for communicating data over links coupled to the IP network  110  and/or serial network  115 . The network interfaces  210  may be configured to transmit and/or receive data using a variety of different IP communication protocols, such as TCP/IP, UDP, etc. Note that the device  200  may have multiple different types of IP network connections  210 , e.g., wireless and wired/physical connections, and that the view herein is merely for illustration. Also, while the IP network interface  210  is shown separately from power supply  260 , for PLC the network interface  210  may communicate through the power supply  260 , or may be an integral component of the power supply. In some specific configurations the PLC signal may be coupled to the power line feeding into the power supply. 
     In further embodiments, network interface(s)  210  may also include the other hand, include the mechanical, electrical, and signaling circuitry for communicating data over links coupled to the serial network  115 . Notably, one or more of network interface(s)  210  may be configured to transmit and/or receive data using a variety of different serial communication protocols, such as OBD, CANBUS, MOBIUS, etc., on any range of serial interfaces such as legacy universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) serial interfaces and modern serial interfaces like universal serial bus (USB). 
     The memory  240  comprises a plurality of storage locations that are addressable by the processor  220  and the network interfaces  210  for storing software programs and data structures associated with the embodiments described herein. The processor  220  may comprise hardware elements or hardware logic adapted to execute the software programs and manipulate the data structures  245 . An operating system  242 , portions of which are is typically resident in memory  240  and executed by the processor, functionally organizes the device by, among other things, invoking operations in support of software processes and/or services executing on the device. These software processes/services may comprise an illustrative vehicle super resolution process  248 , as described herein. Note that while process  248  is shown in centralized memory  240  alternative embodiments provide for the process to be specifically operated within the network interface(s)  210 . 
     It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that other processor and memory types, including various computer-readable media, may be used to store and execute program instructions pertaining to the techniques described herein. Also, while the description illustrates various processes, it is expressly contemplated that various processes may be embodied as modules configured to operate in accordance with the techniques herein (e.g., according to the functionality of a similar process). Further, while the processes have been shown separately, those skilled in the art will appreciate that processes may be routines or modules within other processes. 
     Many serial network endpoints, such as sensors and actuators found in vehicular or industrial systems, are specifically tailored to function based on a proprietary serial communication protocol. Typically, such endpoints are also not natively enabled for IP communication. That is, in many serial network implementations, the commands and data consumption for the endpoints occurs on a device that is also a part of the serial network. 
     As noted above, the amount of data generated by network edge devices, specifically from connected passenger and commercial vehicles, and its collection by data consumers, such as cloud and data centers, is significantly increasing. For example, it can be assumed that there will be future requirements to stream data (telemetry) in real-time representing different data points in a vehicle from the CANBUS of the vehicle to answer particular questions in a cloud environment. However, the capabilities of existing communication infrastructures present a real limit on this data transfer and this data transfer limitation is expected to persist for many years to come. 
     At least on the surface, data compression would seem to be the natural approach to address the limited bandwidth of the communication infrastructure. However, doing so also typically entails distorting the data in some manner. Data should never be tampered with and should be left alone. Data is what was observed and cannot be changed after the event. 
     Vehicle Telematics with Super Resolution 
     According to various aspects of the techniques herein, it is possible to construct physical and behavioral models of the underlying physics of a system that “best” predict the observed data. In the particular case of vehicles, these models can be used to project new, synthetic data points at an even higher resolution and fidelity than that of the observed data points from the CANBUS or other sensors. In various aspects, these models reflect the states of the vehicle system as variables which could correspond at least to the underlying data, and exceed the measured points and even derive estimates for those not measured. The derivations are purely computed from the physical models and, thus, rely on how the physical characteristics of the vehicle are related. By way of simple example, the acceleration of the vehicle can be modeled and derived from other sensor inputs, even though few vehicles are actually equipped accelerometers. 
     Illustratively, the techniques described herein may be performed by hardware, software, and/or firmware, such as in accordance with the vehicle super resolution process  248 , which may include computer executable instructions executed by the processor  220  (or independent processor of interfaces  210 ) to perform functions relating to the techniques described herein. 
       FIG.  3    illustrates an example architecture  300  for vehicle telematics with super resolution, according to various embodiments. As shown, assume that there are one or more receiver applications  302  that use as input data indicative of the physical characteristics of the vehicle. In various embodiments, the receiver application(s)  302  may be local to the vehicle itself (e.g., vehicle  102  shown in  FIG.  1 B ) or, alternatively, at a remote location, such as a server  140 , end device  142 , or cloud-based application  144 . 
     With respect to the physical characteristics of the vehicle, the vehicle itself may include any number of interconnected sub-systems that comprise any number of sensors. Notably, the vehicle itself may include any number of CAN buses or other sub-systems that provide the sensor data to a microcontroller or other processing circuit local to the vehicle. Accordingly, these sensors and sub-systems may provide real data  304  that is indicative of the physical characteristics of the vehicle. For example, real data  304  may include CANBUS data, image data, Lidar data, or the like, that comprises actual measurement values of the physical characteristics of the vehicle. 
     As would be appreciated, the collection of these measurements, as well as their reporting via their respective sub-systems, may also vary from a temporal standpoint. For example, the update frequency of a GPS system may be quite different than that of an odometer reading from a CANBUS sub-system of the vehicle. In addition, because of the potential limitations of the communication infrastructure in conveying real data  304  to receiver application(s)  302 , it may not be possible to send real data  304  to application(s)  302  for use in real-time or at the input rate needed by application(s)  302 . 
     As shown, there may be linear and/or non-linear physical models  306  that describe the relationships between the physical characteristics of the vehicle. These models may, for example, allow for the computation of state estimations of the vehicle and determine conditions of the vehicle that are not directly measured by real data  304 . For example, in the case of acceleration, this physical characteristic of the vehicle may be a function of the velocity and traveled distance of the vehicle over time. Such models  306  may be known or assumed, depending on the characteristics involve. 
     According to various embodiments, architecture  300  may perform any number of simulations  308  using forward model(s) that are based on the underlying physical models  306 . For example, these simulations  308  may use multi-fidelity and time series data generation to generate synthetic data  310  (e.g., multiple states, data channels, etc.). Generally speaking, synthetic data  310  may include predicted states/characteristics of the is vehicle that were not measured directly by the sub-systems of the vehicle, but were instead inferred based on the actual sensor measurements and on the prior state(s) of the vehicle. 
     In many embodiments, architecture  300  may leverage machine learning for the forward model(s) of simulations  308 , so as to make better state predictions about the vehicle. In general, machine learning is concerned with the design and the development of techniques that receive empirical data as input (e.g., real telemetry data from the vehicle) and recognize complex patterns in the input data. For example, some machine learning techniques use an underlying model M, whose parameters are optimized for minimizing the cost function associated to M, given the input data. For instance, in the context of classification, the model M may be a straight line that separates the data into two classes (e.g., labels) such that M=a*x+b*y+c and the cost function is a function of the number of misclassified points. The learning process then operates by adjusting the parameters a,b,c such that the number of misclassified points is minimal. After this optimization/learning phase, the model M can be used to classify new data points, such as information regarding new traffic flows in the network. Often, M is a statistical model, and the cost function is inversely proportional to the likelihood of M, given the input data. 
     Example machine learning techniques that can be used to perform simulations  308  may include, but are not limited to, nearest neighbor (NN) techniques (e.g., k-NN models, replicator NN models, etc.), statistical techniques (e.g., Bayesian networks, Kalman filtering, etc.), clustering techniques (e.g., k-means, mean-shift, etc.), neural networks (e.g., reservoir networks, artificial neural networks, etc.), support vector machines (SVMs), logistic or other regression, Markov models or chains, principal component analysis (PCA) (e.g., for linear models), multi-layer perceptron (MLP) ANNs (e.g., for non-linear models), replicating reservoir networks (e.g., for non-linear models, typically for time series), random forest classification, or the like. 
     In summary, the assumption made in architecture  300  is that, given the physical and behavioral models  306 , architecture  300  can probabilistically predict what would be is observed (the expected data), as well as what is not actually observed, through the underlying models and the measured data, to uphold the boundary conditions of the computational models. In turn, the resulting synthetic data  310  can be provided to receiver application(s)  302 . 
     During operation, architecture  300  may compare the synthetic data  310  computed by simulations  308  to the real data  304  actually observed by the vehicle, to produce model updates  312 . For example, architecture  300  may determine that a delta exists between the predicted state of the vehicle by simulations  308  and what is indicated by real data  304  from the sub-system(s) of the vehicle. In turn, these model updates and deltas  314  may be provided to receiver application(s)  302  and can also be used as self-calibration data  316 , to recalibrate the models used to generate synthetic data  310 . 
       FIGS.  4 A- 4 B  illustrate an example of a vehicle providing data to a receiver application, according to various embodiments. As shown in  FIG.  4 A , in the particular cases of vehicle to vehicle (V2V) or vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communications, vehicle  102  may send data to an endpoint  410  (e.g., a server, cloud service, end device, etc.). In such a case, network “compression” may be achieved by performing two simultaneous simulations of the vehicle: a local simulation  402  on-board vehicle  102  and a separate simulation  404  on endpoint  410  that output reconstructed data  408  for consumption by the receiver application(s)  412 . When vehicle  102  detects deltas between the state predictions of its simulation  402  and the real data from its sub-systems, vehicle  102  may send the appropriate corrections  406  to simulation  404 . 
     Very high network compressability is reached when the synthetic/reconstructed data  408  computed by simulation  404  produces good estimates from the models. The same difference is also computed and tracked in vehicle  102  validating that the errors are within the tolerance limits. In practice, the tolerance limit follows the noise tolerance of the sensors of vehicle  102  generating the real data. Adjustments are then reported to the cloud on an as-needed basis via corrections  406 . 
     The assumption is considered that compressability using this technique will is remove only noise (data lost) from the actual data. This is the differentiation when compared to other compression techniques. The benefits to this approach are three folds: 
     Continuous streaming 
     High compression ratio 
     Low noise to signal ratio 
     Further advantages are found with this approach in how to resolve conflicting data points coming from independent data points in the in-vehicle system. For example, a known conflict is found between the vehicle speed/odometer as the measurements from the CANBUS sub-system will conflict with the Global Position Systems (GPS) data measurements, begin another sub-system. In fact, GPS applications derive speed and distances in a global sense, which are computed from estimates of the longitudes, latitudes, and elevations associated with the vehicle. In contrast, the vehicle speed and odometer measurements are local to the vehicle, calculated from the revolutions per minute (RPM) of the wheels of the vehicle. 
     Architecture  420  in  FIG.  4 B  further illustrates the concepts of  FIG.  4 A , in various embodiments. As shown, assume that there exists one or more receiver applications  422  that take as input data indicative of the physical states of a vehicle or other monitored system. Such a vehicle or other system may capture real data  428  regarding at least some of these characteristics (e.g., via sensors, etc.). Instead of providing real data  428  directly to receiver application(s)  422 , forward model simulations  434  that are based on the underlying linear and non-linear physical models  436  may be used to produce synthetic data  426 . Thus, in the example shown, architecture  420  may include a sender  440  that captures real data  428  and generates synthetic data  426 , as well as a receiver  438  that includes the receiver application(s)  422  that are to leverage this data. In some embodiments, receiver  438  may be remote from that of sender  440 , such as external to the vehicle itself. However, further embodiments also provide for sender  440  and receiver  438  to both be located on-board the vehicle. 
     During operation, receiver  438  may itself mimic the forward simulations  434  of is sender  440  using its own forward model simulation  432  and based on the underlying linear and/or non-linear physical models  430  for the vehicle. This allows the receiver  438  to output synthetic data  424  for use by application(s)  422 . Model updates  422  provided by sender  440  may be used to adjust the operations/predictions of receiver  438 , when sender  440  detects differences between real data  428  and synthetic data  426 . This allows receiver  428  to effectively reconstruct the vehicle states from model updates  422  directly. As a result, receiver application(s)  422  may receive as input the resulting high fidelity data  424 . 
     In other words, the models used in architecture  420  perform the central thinking role for all of the real information in the data. These models are constructed from the prior knowledge of the physical processes and how physical dynamics interacts with their environment. Furthermore, vehicles are also designed and built from physics models. This central model could loosely be described as the system that “models” data, but it is not itself “data” or a “data product.” 
     To achieve the highest reliability with given measurements, the simulations may employ Bayesian probabilistic estimation, to allow robust statistical estimation of the most probable simulations, in various embodiments. Additionally, the uncertainty associated with the simulations can also be calculated. In particular, if the simulation uncertainty is high, it means that there is insufficient data/prior knowledge to accurately use the required model. 
     Another assumption that can be made is that the vehicle sensors are truly physical and, consequently, follow Gaussian probability distribution functions. The Bayesian approach then becomes an exercise of statistical computation of updating and tracking the means, variances and covariances. The Bayesian model-based data integration, outlined above (e.g., a dynamic and extended Kalman filter), in principle allows the system to integrate real measurements from multiple sub-system sources, which may be CAN-based or not. In addition, the proposed system can consume any modeled measurement at any frame update speed. There are many practical uses in merging computationally is efficient different data points, especially in view of the huge amounts of data involved. 
     In other words, the approach introduced herein allows CAN data and other external data to be integrated into higher resolution data through the use of physical and behavioral models. The updated data is used by a compression application to determine whether data should be sent over the network. For example, odometers data and GPS data can be combined into higher fidelity estimates, using the super resolution techniques introduced herein. In such a case, the correlation between GPS and odometer data may be leveraged to eliminate redundancy in transmitting data over the network. All data can then be recreated, once received in the cloud or other receiver. In other words, the combination of different forms of sensor measurements (e.g., GPS, speed, odometer, tire pressure, etc.) can lead to higher data fidelity and time resolution than that of any particular form of sensor data alone. 
     In most commercial vehicles, model-based simulations (synthetic data) can be achieved today as an embedded, compute-enabled product. It can possibly be implemented, for example, deep within an in-vehicle network (IVN) engine control unit (ECU) in listening mode and as an end point to existing environment (e.g., by connecting CANBUS to other telemetry streams). 
     One can also assume that the measured data is continuously evaluated against the models and that noise estimation is made at a very high fidelity. Due to diversity of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) components in the automotive industry, different models can be used to retain quality and reflect different vehicle components and their relevant behaviors. 
     When more sensors and their resulting data points are translated through their underlying physics and behavioral laws to the high-resolution models, high-resolution data is consequently produced with optimal statistical definition. Simply put, the super resolution techniques provide a trade-analysis between the highly correlated data statistical threshold against multi-dimensional interpolation and extrapolation through the underlying physical and behavioral models. 
       FIG.  5    illustrates an example  500  of data conversion in a vehicle, in various embodiments. From a data input standpoint, the super resolution system may be designed to be independent from the underlying I/O, for portability purposes, as well resource distributions in the environment. Accordingly, in some embodiments, software drivers may be used to convert the data into the system, independently. The three main criteria that dominate the data flow are the following: 
     1. Multiple data input 
     2. Asynchronous time of arrival of data 
     3. Variable count of measurements (at anytime) 
     As shown, consider the case of a vehicle that is equipped with a data transport  502  that comprises multiple CAN Flexible Data-Rate (FD) sub-systems running at potentially different clock rates (e.g., a first through n th  CAN FD sub-system). In such a case, one CANBUS may produce measurements at a faster rate than that of another CANBUS. Faster CAN FD sub-systems are intended for modern vehicles that require higher CANBUS speeds. Indeed, many modern vehicles have at least two isolated CANBUS sub-systems. Typically, power train sensors are grouped and isolated on a faster sub-system network than the rest. As shown, the data transport  502  may also include other forms of networks, in some embodiments. For example, certain vehicles may also include one or more IP networks, such as to facilitate V2V or V2I communications and/or as a separate sub-system within the vehicle itself. 
     In general, the proposed system should asynchronously process the data at the rate at which it is detected. Accordingly, the vehicle may include data converter and independent processes  504  that handle the data from the existing data transport layer  502 . For example, one such data conversion may multiplex the input data at the record input level to preserve the sequence of measurements sequences as well as the time they have been made. Furthermore, the system will recognize other known systems that produce additional measurements. For example, a GPS sub-system may be connected to an entertainment gateway over an IP network in data transport layer  502 . In that case, the data produced from the GPS can be made available to the system. 
     To manage diverse data inputs with different time resolution and formats from data transport  502 , the data converter  504  may abstract the data into variable Type-Length-Value (TLV) format and prepare it as input to the main super resolution system as APIs  506 . For example, as shown, the input to the super resolution system may be a row of measurements where the columns are the sensors types. Furthermore, with different input streams, the types will vary from a row to row. Consideration is also taken that a row of measurement represents a collection of measurements taken at a specific time. In other words, a row may include an additional data type which reflects time or is the timestamp of that moment. The timestamp may be derived from the sensor readings, most cases. The system may then internally compute the time difference between two consecutive rows of measurements. 
     In addition to the drivers of data converter  504  converting the data formats from data transport  502  into a TLV format that defines the API as input to the system, the drivers may also decode the data representation found in the underlying protocol. This is typical in a CAN message: a driver in that case will decode a CAN message ID into a pair value (name, value) where the name is the type identification understood by the system. The drivers are mappings table that converts the OEM ID to the System data types. The value component is a 32/64 bits precision based on the software build options having the underlying hardware platform as a typical target. 
     In various embodiments, the underlying protocol may be a CAN2IP protocol whereby a single IP packet contains one or more CAN messages. The driver in that case will decode the CAN messages and encapsulate one or many into a row of TLVs. It is clear that the number of entries in a row will vary, with a minimum one measurement and up to the complete sensors arrays. The row containing a timestamp is optional. With the option of a lack of timestamp signature, the system will behave in a deterministic way and use a new timestamp inherited from the clock from the underlying hardware. 
     Behavioral Models for Vehicles 
     As noted above, data integration is not an easy task when it needs to be accomplished in an efficient, cheap, real-time, and comprehensive manner. Furthermore, is data integration is worthless if the underlying data is unreliable. Data is as reliable as the underlying the sensing models. For example, a slight variance in the tire size can put an odometer off by hundreds of miles from its true value, even over a short period of time. For the modern and future transportation vehicles, sensing is the most essential component in such an endeavor. Understanding the data nowadays overcomes the mere necessity of data collection and data transportation. In other words, a critical task is to understand the data itself before decisions are made from the data. 
     Behavioral modeling in a vehicle can be better understood with the GPS analogy. In GPS systems, the underlying GPS data comprises time echoes from satellites within sight. Collecting time records alone is worthless. However, extracting longitude, latitude, and elevation as state estimates renders the GPS system workable to locate and track the position of a vehicle. The underlying technology for a GPS system is the Doppler Differential Kalman Filter. 
     The techniques herein introduce methodologies for modeling the underlying physics of a vehicle, so as to best predict the observed data. From such physical models, it is possible to project new derived data points at a higher resolution and fidelity, which appears as a set of state variables for the vehicle. In some aspects, this set is a union of state variables that are measured and those that are purely derived from physical and behavioral models. That is, given the model, the behavioral modeling techniques herein can probabilistically predict what would be observed (the expected data) and the non-observed through the underlying models. 
     Operationally, as noted, a vehicle may comprise multiple sub-systems, such as GPS, tire, fuel, engine, vehicle dynamics, and the like. Each of these sub-systems may be represented by a set of state variables. In turn, physical and behavioral models for these sub-systems can be developed to predict the behavior of the sub-systems over time. Such a model may, for example, predict the current state based on the n-th order derivative of previous states. In particular, the physical states may be modeled and represented as a is state numerical vector in a vector matrix format for the said variables with dimension representing the states of interests. 
     In various embodiments, the state vector may be inserted in an enhanced dynamical, system recursion model that takes the following general format whereby ‘0 th ’ represents the current state, ‘1 th ’ represents the previous state, etc.:
 
[ x 0]=[ A 1]·[ x 1]+[ A 2]·[ x 2]+ . . . +[An][ xn ]+[ B ][ u ]  (equation 1)
 
where [x0] is the current state, {[x1], [x2], . . . [xn]} are the previous ‘n’ states, and {[A1], [A2] . . . [An]} are the prediction step matrices for each derivative.
 
     An approximation and practical implementation of this modeling is to increase the use of the dynamical system representation beyond the previous state only. These models can reflect better the non-linearity inherently part of the underlying physical sub-systems. In addition, there can be external influences that affect the prediction. This is represented in the above question by corresponding control state vector [u] and control matrix [B], respectively. 
     By way of explicit example, consider a vehicle dynamics sub-system. In this sub-system, there may be four state variables: time (t), velocity (v), acceleration (a), and distance/displacement (d), that describe the dynamics of the vehicle. Note that not all of these physical characteristics may be measured directly in the vehicle. For example, it may very well be that the vehicle itself is not equipped with an accelerometer that directly measures the acceleration of the vehicle. Underlying these state variables may be a physical model that describes the physical relationships between these characteristics. Notably, these characteristics may be related according to the following physical dynamics equation:
 
 d= 1/2 at   2   +vt   (equation 2)
 
     To build a behavioral model from this physical model, a state vector can be constructed as follows:
 
 x   i =[ t v a d ] T   (equation 3)
 
Using this state vector in equation 1 above and based on the physical relationship is between the characteristics, first and second order state matrices, A 0  and A 1 , respectively, can be constructed as follows:
 
                     A   1     =     [         1       0       0       0           0       α       dt       0           0         1   dt         0       0           0       dt           1   2     ⁢     dt   2           α         ]             (     equation   ⁢           ⁢   4     )                 A   2     =     [         0       0       0       0           0         (     1   -   α     )         0       0           0         -     1   dt           0       0           0       0       0         (     1   -   α     )           ]             (     equation   ⁢           ⁢   5     )               
where the proportionality (a) is an arbitrary number and the time differential (dt) is the time resolution between two states. The two state matrices, A 0  and A 1 , are modeled in this sub-system to reflect the differential aspect of the quadratic nature of the dynamic physical equation 2 above. The system models the differential state for both matrices, evaluating the acceleration instantaneously rather than depending on the acceleration variable reflected in the state vector.
 
     In the absence of an explicit model, according to various embodiments, the default super resolution system will approximate a generic linear model. Such approximations will reduce the correlation factors. The approximate takes on a differential equation model, computing dx/dt from the state matrices or as a pair variable:
 
[ x   0 ]=[1/ dt 0; dt 1]·[ x   1 ]+[−1/ dt 0;0 0]·[ x   2 ]  (equation 6)
 
where the first variable computes the derivative and the second compute the estimation over a period dt.
 
     In contrast to standard linear systems, the above approach also allows for the effective modeling of non-linear systems. In particular, standard models are linear and rely on the previous state, which is a linear interpolation limitation. However, by increasing the differentiability of the state equation to two or more prior states (e.g., by modeling two or more previous states), this leads to a higher fidelity in the interpolation and the extrapolation of the inherent non-linearity of the sub-systems. 
     While considering additional prior states in the model will improve the fidelity of is the prediction, it will not make it non-linear. For example, the model X 0 =X 1 +X 2 +X 3  is still linear and cannot be referred to as non-linear. In contrast, a non-linear system is possible by just having one prior state such as X 0 =X 1   2 +X 1 +2. By increasing the prior states, the evaluation of a non-linear system reflects the correct time rather than having to have lag in the state. Lag of a state is defined as the number of historical data used in the prediction. Therefore, more states imply more lag. However, the opposite is actually true. 
     In some embodiments, the above techniques can be extended to non-linear systems with higher order, non-linear complexity by using an expansion method, such as the Euler expansion method. Using such a method, an exponential model can be broken down into a quadratic representation. If a model is represented by a non-linear function that is differentiable, then such functions can be represented as Taylor series or likewise, so that a linear approximation of the non-liner model can be achieved. This can be solved using extended Kalman filtering techniques, in some embodiments. However, Euler expansion results in representing an exponential as a complex quadratic equation and not a quadratic one. 
     Further, any linear transformations, such as Fourier transforms or inverse Fourier transforms, can be performed inline as state calculations where the state matrix model is integrated over the time series states. An example of this would be the RPM of the engine where the underlying time series data is the angle of axial rotations from a reference point. Another example of this would be the inertia sensor (acceleration) of the vehicle where the underlying time series data is the vehicle inertia of the vehicle in three dimensions from a reference point. Extending this where the limited window for such transformations are performed with specific integral state matrix models whereas these integrals are performed over time series, the oldest transformed vector can be subtracted directly (differential) from the already transformed states. 
     Independent Sparse Sub-System Calculations for Dynamic State Estimation in Embedded Systems 
     The techniques herein introduce a sparse computational approach for updating vehicle sub-system states in a behavioral model for the vehicle, thus significantly reducing resource requirements in terms of both CPU and memory. Notably, machine learning-based behavioral models that predict the physical states of a vehicle may be very computationally intensive. When such models are also based on variables from different vehicle sub-systems/sub-networks (e.g., an engine CANBUS, a GPS CANBUS, etc.), from which variable updates may occur at different times, it may not be possible to fully update the behavioral model at each pass, due to a lack of computational resources available in the vehicle. 
     Operationally, modeling complex state variables for multiple sub-systems of an embedded system, such as a vehicle, may entail processing parameter variables that can number into the thousands. For example, most modern automotive vehicles now have over 300 physical sensors. Adding the un-measured, derived, or other states to the state vector for the vehicle will grow the state vector to be very large. As noted above, mathematical, physical, and behavioral models for these sub-systems can be developed to predict the behavior of the systems over time. All sub-systems are then represented by a set of state variables. The model predicts the current state based on the n-th order derivative of previous states. 
     For embedded systems, such as a vehicle ECU or other processor, it may be prohibitive to perform large computations, including full updates to a behavioral model for the vehicle. For example, if the state count is in the order of 1,000, each state matrix needed would be 1,000 squared. For a double precision implementation, the memory requirements will grow exponentially. Computational complexity will also follow at an exponential rate. This is not scalable using the hardware available today. 
     In general, the techniques disclosed herein allow for the performance of such complex model updates in a much more efficient way, both for memory usage, as well as CPU usage. These techniques reduce the computational complexity almost to be of the order of the number of states times the required floating-point precision. 
     As noted above, physical states of a vehicle are modeled and represented as a state numerical vector in a vector matrix form for the said variables, with dimension representing the states of interests. Inserting the state vector in an enhanced dynamical system recursion takes the following general format whereby ‘0th’ represents the current state, ‘1th’ represents the previous state, etc.
 
[ x   0 ]=[ A   1 ]·[ x   1 ]+[ A   2 ]·[ x   2 ]+ . . . +[ A   n ][ x   n ]+[ B ][ u ]  (equation 7)
 
where, [x 0 ] is the current state, {[x 1 ], [x 2 ], . . . , [x n ]} are the previous ‘n’ states, and {[A 1 ], [A 2 ], . . . , [A n ]} are the prediction step matrices for each derivative.
 
     A vehicle system is indeed a system of systems or sub-systems. This subdivision is dependent on the underlying physics or behavior model. For example, the state variables for a vehicle GPS system are longitude, latitude, elevation and distance. It can be assumed that longitude, latitude, and elevation are derived variables from the GPS sub-system, yet another derived variable, the distance ‘d,’ can be derived as a variable from the axial rotation sensors of the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle dynamics sub-system). For example, the distance variable used in the model may be obtained from odometer sensor readings in the vehicle. In this example, a GPS sub-systems relates only on a subset of the whole vehicle states (e.g., the distance ‘d’ covered by the vehicle, in addition to the longitude, latitude, and elevation state variables. The choice of this example is also to reflect the update frequency of a GPS system being difference from the CANBUS updating the odometer readings. For the sake of this illustration, assume that the CANBUS updates at 100 ms and a GPS sub-system updates at a different frequency based on an arbitrary variance. 
     According to various embodiments, the processor of the vehicle or other embedded system may compute the sub-system in the overall system according to the following pseudocode: 
     Create state { [x 1 ], [x 2 ], . . . [x n ]} in the Memory Heap (static) 
     Create a data model index [index] in the Memory Heap mapping variables location in [x] 
     Call-back sub-system 
     Find in [Index] reference to sub-system minimum viable state variables 
     Extract local references into [x] in matrices [xx] 
     Lock memory used by [xx] 
     Compute [xx 0 ]=[A 1 ]·[xx 1 ]+[A 2 ]·[xx 2 ]+ . . . +[A n ][xx n ]+[B][u] 
     (Note: Updating [xx 0 ] is updating [x 0 ] directly since xx is reference indexed into x) 
     Unlock memory used by [xx] 
     End loop; 
     The processor can also take a similar approach with respect to other variables such as variance updates and calculations, in a sparse fashion. For example, in some embodiments, covariance updates, matrices transpositions, and matrix inversions may be performed in a similar manner as above. Consider the case of a Kalman Filter gain implementation as follows:
 
K=[P]·[H] T ([H]·[P]·[H] T ) −1   (equation 8)
 
where K is the Kalman gain, P is the covariance matrix, and [H] is another design (besides A) matrix both of the dimensional of [x] square. This has a large computational complexity. The complexity is thus to compute the transpose, multiply two square matrices and invert another.
 
     Leveraging the above sparse computation techniques above, updates to equation 8 can be performed by building a new, reduced matrix comprising of the relevant variable such as
 
HH=[H 1 ,0 . . . ; 0,H 2 ,0 . . . , 0 . . . , 0,H n ]  (equation 9)
 
where n is limited to the relevant states. For the GPS and Odometer example, this can be reduced to a 4×4 size matrix. P is also reduced to PP accordingly, all based on the maintained index. Thus, to compute the following sub-system in the overall system, the is method is as follow:
 
     Create state {[x1], [x2], . . . [xn]} in the Memory Heap (static) 
     Create a data model index [index] in the Memory Heap mapping variables location in [x] 
     Call-back sub-system 
     Find in [Index] reference to sub-system minimum viable state variables 
     Extract local references into [x] in matrices [xx] 
     Build a temporarily matrix [HH] and [PP] 
     Lock memory used by [xx] 
     Compute 
     Unlock memory used by [xx] 
     End loop; 
     As would be appreciated, the sparse computational approach introduced herein allows for updating of only a portion of the model at any given time, thereby accounting for different update frequencies of state variables from the different sub-systems. For example, in a typical vehicle, odometer updates occur more often than for GPS. Although the odometer updates only update a small percentage of the overall state variables, the model itself can still be updated by breaking the computations down to the level of minimum viable computation. A GPS update will also update the states of the model in similar fashion. 
     In other words, at any instant, the system is never updated all at once, only requiring the consumption of a small amount of memory. The process of sparse calculation leveraging time slicing the updates allows for the translation of the computation complexity into a managed process. In a practical sense, the number of variables (states) being updated at once is often less than 2% compared to the overall is state vector dimension. The complexity reduction is thus reduced from quadratic to a quasi linear. 
     Said differently, different sub-systems/networks often broadcast variable updates at different rates. For example, an odometer on a CANBUS sub-system can update the relevant state sparsely in term of location and time frequency. Similarly, a GPS sub-system can update the system sparsely also in term of memory and time frequency. Doing so avoids having to update and re-compute the overall model at each pass. For example, memory locking an a deterministic clock can be used to establish a first-come, first-served strategy for model updates. 
     Note that it is also not a requirement that the model be updated at the same rate as the state variables. In one embodiment, an optional mechanism may be used to control which state variables are updated and when, such as by throttling or even turning off certain updates. For example, such a mechanism can be used to throttle down the sampling rate of CANBUS or other inputs, so as to intentionally reduce requests for certain updates while keeping others at full speed. A priority ordering on the updates can also be used, with the option of arbitrarily and completely disregarding others. 
     Since the state is a reflection of multiple inputs, the resulting update frequency of the state estimation is thus faster when the input clock are inherently independent for sub-systems, such as CANBUS and GPS. In addition, the techniques herein can be used to independently achieve sparse state updates in terms of dimensionality and frequency and without the need to perform a full state estimation computation. 
     Telemetry Reporting in Vehicle Super Resolution Systems 
     The techniques herein also introduce a system that first simulates a vehicle sub-system, allowing for the computation of the difference between what the state produces as synthetic data and the actual telemetry. In turn, the system can quantify this difference using, for example, Bayesian statistics on the error variance between the synthetic data and the actual telemetry. Decision criteria can then be assessed, to control when the diverging telemetry data should be sent to a destination, based on the variance. In further aspects, what is reported, as well as how it is reported, can also be controlled, such as by reporting only the most relevant telemetry data. In addition, synchronization mechanisms are introduced to implement determinism and/or sequence synchronization between the sender and receiver. 
     Specifically, according to one or more embodiments of the disclosure as described in detail below, a processor of a vehicle detects a difference between a physical characteristic of the vehicle predicted by a first machine learning-based model and a physical characteristic of the vehicle indicated by telemetry data generated by a sub-system of the vehicle. The processor forms a packet payload of an update packet indicative of the detected difference, based in part on a relevancy of the physical characteristic to the first machine learning-based model. The processor applies a synchronization strategy to the update packet, to synchronize the update packet with a second machine learning-based model executed by a receiver. The processor sends the update packet to the receiver via a network, to update the second machine learning-based model. 
     Illustratively, the techniques described herein may be performed by hardware, software, and/or firmware, such as in accordance with the vehicle super resolution process  248 , which may include computer executable instructions executed by the processor  220  (or independent processor of interfaces  210 ) to perform functions relating to the techniques described herein. 
     Operationally,  FIGS.  6 A- 6 C  illustrate examples of an update being sent in a two point simulation system  600 , according to various embodiments. As shown in system  600  a vehicle  602  may send data indicative of its physical characteristics to a receiver  618  (e.g., for consumption by an application of the receiver). In various embodiments, vehicle  602  and receiver  618  may run simulation  610  and simulation  616 , respectively, to model the behavior of the vehicle. Doing so provides for the reporting of the states of vehicle  602  to receiver  618  with super resolution and without requiring transmittal of all is of the telemetry data generated by vehicle  602 . 
     As detailed above, vehicle  602  may include any number of sub-systems  604  (e.g., a first through n th  sub-system) that each collects and provides actual telemetry data  606  indicative of the physical characteristics of vehicle  602 . For example, sub-systems  604  may each include any number of sensors, processors, or the like, that generate data indicative of the physical characteristics of vehicle  602 . In addition, sub-systems  604  may each comprise their own sub-network to convey their generated data within vehicle  602 . For example, sub-system  604   a  may include one CANBUS-based sub-network that conveys odometer readings, while sub-system  604   n  may be a separate CANBUS-based sub-network, IP network, GPS sub-system, or the like. As would be appreciated, the update frequency for telemetry data  606  may vary, depending on the reporting sensor and its associated sub-network. 
     Using telemetry data  604  with simulation  608 , vehicle  602  is able to generate synthetic data  610  that predicts the physical characteristics and, thus, the current state, of vehicle  602 . In a similar manner, simulation  616  at receiver  618  may also predict the state of vehicle  602  using these predictions as input to its application(s). As noted, simulations  608  and simulation  616  may work in conjunction with one another, with vehicle  602  sending updates to simulation  616 . 
     For illustration purposes, one can imagine a vehicle  602  implementing the techniques herein on embedded hardware running in vehicle  602  and accepting actual telemetry  606  from sub-systems  604 . The first step is to simulate the vehicle sub-systems  604  via simulation  608  with input from CANBUS, for example, as the true measurement. In turn, a comparator  612  is able to compute the difference between what the state produces as synthetic data  610  and actual telemetry data  606 . 
     The second step is to process the difference between synthetic data  610  and the actual telemetry data  606 . For example, comparator  612  may calculate the difference as an error variance using Bayesian statistics between synthetic data  610  and the actual telemetry data  606 . 
     The third step, as shown in  FIG.  6 A , entails update engine  614  employing decision criteria to determine whether the difference computed by comparator  612  between synthetic data  610  and actual telemetry data  606 . For example, if the error variance computed by comparator  612  is above a defined threshold (e.g., the difference is statistically significant), update engine  614  may determine that the diverging telemetry data  606  should be sent to receiver  618  as an update. 
     With respect to providing updates from vehicle  602  to receiver  618 , the techniques herein further allow for: 
     1.) The efficient data packing of updates from multiple streams; and 
     2.) Data synchronization between simulations  608  and  616 . 
     As shown in  FIG.  6 B , rather than simply sending the diverging telemetry data  606  to receiver  618  whenever update engine  614  determines that the difference computed by comparator  612  is statistically significant, update engine  614  may instead attempt to intelligently pack the payload of any update packet sent to receiver  618 . Notably, the diverging telemetry data  606  may be quite small in size. For example, a single floating-point value can be expressed in 4 bytes or less. In contrast, the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of a network packet can range up to 1,500 bytes. In such cases, the overhead of the packet is still substantially larger than the actual payload. As would be appreciated, for different MTU sizes, the payload size is equal to the MTU size minus the header size. 
     In various embodiments, update engine  614  may pack the payload of an update packet with as much relevant data as possible. In this context, the relevancy of the data to be included in the payload is related to how much of an effect the data has on simulation  616 . In a statistical sense, the goal, then, of update engine  614  is to pack the payload of the update packet with data that maximizes the information certainty as whole (e.g., minimize the covariance) and theses states are specifically specified by the covariance matrix associated with simulation  608 . This is in sharp contrast to approaches that may pack the payload using a first-come-first-served strategy. 
     Thus, update engine  614  may send updates to receiver  618  by first sorting the update data in order of model relevancy. The relevancy is computed on the underlying covariances. Indeed, the covariance matrix associated with the simulation defines the correlations. Many updates correlate to many variables at once within the models. In particular, an update to one variable can have substantial influence on the overall model than others would. For example, a speed parameter may correlate with parameters related to the odometer, RPMs, oxygen intake, gas pedal, braking system, and the like of vehicle  602 , whereas data regarding the door locks of vehicle  602  may not correlate with anything. The correlations are reflected in the covariance matrix associated with the model. In turn, update engine  614  may order and sort the update data by traversing the covariance matrix, aggregating up the correlations factors for the updates in question, and changing the priority of influence along the way. 
     Note that the data packing also influences the underlying network protocol. In network compression for telemetry, less data is usually exchanged, but there is tremendous content value in an exchange. Thus, some sort of guarantee layer must be established. In a simple case, it can be assumed that the underlying network provides the appropriate mechanism guarantying the data transport between update engine  614  and receiver  618 . However, the lack thereof of such a network guarantee can be mitigated by employing a bidirectional basic handshake between update engine  614  and receiver  618 . For example, this can be accomplished by exposing the TCP ACK sequence from the Layer 2 information. If updates are not received by receiver  618 , update engine  614  can revisit and recompute the update packet with a new priority. Note that the consequence of missing a scheduled delivery of an update to receiver  618  may have a statistical error margin increase above the allowed thresholds. In such cases, the relevant covariances may be exposed to receiver  618 . 
     As shown in  FIG.  6 C , update engine  614  may also apply a synchronization strategy to its updates, before sending an update packet  620  to receiver  618 . Simulation  608  simulates the various sub-systems  604  of vehicle  602 , dynamically taking as input actual telemetry data  606  from the various sub-networks of sub-systems  604 . However, is each telemetry source may have a different sampling rate and/or internal clock, meaning that all of the various clocks may not coincide in resolution. Synchronization between vehicle  602  and receiver  618  relates how to replicate, from a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) point of view, the data points from the sampling from sub-systems  604  to meet the Nyquist limit requirements. 
     Universal time absoluteness is not mandatory for vehicle  602  and receiver  618  to be synchronized. However, clock correctness in the sense of highest resolution possible in this context (e.g., vehicle to cloud communications.) would meet the minimum Nyquist limit requirements. Accordingly, in various embodiments, update engine  614  may send update packet  620  coupled with a universal timestamp, atomic, or global time approximated to a higher fidelity and resolution that exceeds the highest sampling rate of the actual telemetry data  606 , itself. In turn, receiver  618  may have a clock that is identical to that of update engine  614  with an error between the two clocks being less than the resolution of the sampling of actual telemetry data  606 . Simulation  616  of receiver  618  will update and continue simulation on just the received data from just the received time from update packet  620 . In particular, at receiver  618 , data points may be collected from the output of simulation  616  between any two updates synchronized on the time clock received from the update and the time established at the receiver end. For the boundary condition where the simulation output and the update are close in time with a value less than the sampling rate, Bayesian statistics or other statistics can be used to resolve any boundary condition conflict. 
       FIG.  7    illustrates an example  700  of multiplexing samples with different sampling rates (e.g., different clocks) into a single system. For example, as shown, consider the case of telemetry data from a CANBUS operating at 500 Kbits/s being merged with telemetry data from a CAN FD sub-network operating at 4 Mbit/s. In this case, the Nyquist limit is higher than the largest sampling frequency of the originating dataset. The telemetry data can be coupled with a universal timestamp, atomic, or global time approximated to higher fidelity and resolution exceeding highest sampling rate of the telemetry data itself. 
     For example, if the CANBUS resolution is 100 ms, the timestamp needs to be less than 100 ms resolution. When coupled with a GPS system where the resolution is 1 sec the resolution of the targeted GPS data needs to be less than 100 ms. For practical purposes, the underlying clock may need to be between 10 to 100 times faster. The main purpose for this is to meet Nyquist sampling requirements. To illustrate the Nyquist requirement in this context, the clock of the GPS data will never coincide with the clock of the CANBUS and could occur differentially close to 1 microseconds. Note also that, in a shared environment, software may not have access to a true clock, but a relative one. When the update data is sent to the receiver  618 , it can be assumed that receiver  618  will can interpolate at the designated resolutions, thereby meeting Nyquist limit. However, if the Nyquist sampling rate is not met, rounding for time will occur. Of course, this may be acceptable if error tolerance is acceptable. 
     Referring again to  FIG.  6 C , in further embodiments, the synchronization strategy employed by update engine  614  may entail including a sequence number in update packet  620 , to ensure synchronization between vehicle  602  and receiver  618 . Here, the reference object is thus a clock associated with the sequence number, such as an integer that optionally rotates back to zero. The number of bits for the integer is arbitrary to the system. In such a case, the need for perfectly synchronized clocks can be alleviated, assuming the sequence numbers are used at a high enough time resolution. 
     In various embodiments, update engine  614  may include one of the following types of sequence numbers in update packet  620 :
         1. A sequence number reflecting the true sample count from original sample count from sender.   2. A sequence number reflecting the update sequence number.       

     In the case of option 1 above, simulation  616  on receiver  618  may interpolate on an incremental sequence count until the next sequence update is received. In the case of is option 2 above, simulation  616  on receiver  618  may instead interpolate based on an internal clock, producing synthesized data until next sequence update. In such a case, this may be done at the Nyquist limit as set previously. 
       FIG.  8    illustrates an example simplified procedure for telemetry reporting in a super resolution system, in accordance with one or more embodiments described herein. For example, a processor of a non-generic, specifically configured device (e.g., device  200 ) in a vehicle may perform procedure  800  by executing stored instructions (e.g., process  248 ). The procedure  800  may start at step  805 , and continues to step  810 , where, as described in greater detail above, the processor may determine a difference between a physical characteristic of the vehicle predicted by a first machine learning-based model and a physical characteristic of the vehicle indicated by telemetry data generated by a sub-system of the vehicle. Notably, the first model may generate synthetic data/predicted vehicle characteristics based on the actual telemetry data collected from the vehicle. However, this synthetic data may vary over time from that of the actual telemetry data. In one embodiment, the processor may quantify the difference as a Bayesian error variance between the telemetry data and a state prediction by the first machine learning-based model. In turn, the processor may determine whether the difference is statistically significant, such as by determining whether the error variance exceeds a defined threshold. 
     At step  815 , as detailed above, the processor may form a packet payload of an update packet indicative of the detected difference. In various embodiments, this may be based in part on a relevancy of the physical characteristic to the first machine learning-based model. In particular, certain characteristics/variables may have more of an influence on the model than others. Thus, the relevancy of the difference and its corresponding physical characteristic may be a measure of how much the characteristic/variable increase information certainty in the model. Such a measure may be based, for example, on the covariance matrix associated with the model, in one embodiment. Notably, the processor may determine the relevancy of the physical is characteristic to the first machine learning-based model using a measure of covariance between the corresponding telemetry data and the first machine learning-based model. 
     At step  820 , the processor may apply a synchronization strategy to the update packet, to synchronize the update packet with a second machine learning-based model executed by a receiver, as described in greater detail above. Various approaches are possible with respect to this synchronization. In one embodiment, the processor and the receiver may use a deterministic approach whereby their clocks are synchronized or otherwise set within an acceptable range of variation. In further embodiments, the processor may include a sequence number within the update packet. Such a sequence number may be indicative of a sample count of the physical characteristic reported in the telemetry data or may be indicative of an ordering of update packets (e.g., the update packet is number 6 in a series of packets, etc.). In either case, the second model on the receiver may interpolate at a frequency based on the sequence numbers. 
     At step  825 , as detailed above, the processor may send the update packet to the receiver via a network, to update the second machine learning-based model. As would be appreciated, this approach does not require real-time streaming of the telemetry data, thereby reducing the load on the network. Such an update may include, for example, the top n-number of characteristics to be updated from the actual telemetry data, based on their relevancies. Procedure  800  then ends at step  830 . 
     It should be noted that while certain steps within procedure  800  may be optional as described above, the steps shown in  FIG.  8    are merely examples for illustration, and certain other steps may be included or excluded as desired. Further, while a particular order of the steps is shown, this ordering is merely illustrative, and any suitable arrangement of the steps may be utilized without departing from the scope of the embodiments herein. 
     The techniques described herein, therefore, provide for various optimizations when reporting telemetry data from a vehicle. In some aspects, a data packing approach is introduced herein that prioritizes the reporting of differences between actual and synthetic/predicted data, so as to group data regarding the most relevant differences into is the same update packet payload. In further aspects, synchronization techniques are also introduced so as to ensure that both the sender and receiver are synchronized with respect to the updates. 
     While there have been shown and described illustrative embodiments that provide for behavioral models for vehicles, it is to be understood that various other adaptations and modifications may be made within the spirit and scope of the embodiments herein. For example, while the techniques herein are described primarily with respect to vehicles that include one or more CANBUS sub-systems, the techniques herein can also be adapted for use in manufacturing where the underlying protocol is MOBIUS. In MOBIUS, the underlying sensors reflect manufacturing processes, robotics, and other sensory and actuating found in the energy sector. 
     The foregoing description has been directed to specific embodiments. It will be apparent, however, that other variations and modifications may be made to the described embodiments, with the attainment of some or all of their advantages. For instance, it is expressly contemplated that the components and/or elements described herein can be implemented as software being stored on a tangible (non-transitory) computer-readable medium (e.g., disks/CDs/RAM/EEPROM/etc.) having program instructions executing on a computer, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof. Accordingly, this description is to be taken only by way of example and not to otherwise limit the scope of the embodiments herein. Therefore, it is the object of the appended claims to cover all such variations and modifications as come within the true spirit and scope of the embodiments herein.