Difference between revisions of "Group 2"
From Self-Organization Wiki
| (14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ===Group members=== | ||
| + | * Christian Bettstetter | ||
| + | * Hermann de Meer | ||
| + | * Johannes Klinglmayr | ||
| + | * Martina Umlauft | ||
| + | |||
===Challenges=== | ===Challenges=== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | * | + | * '''Design of emergence''': |
| − | * | + | ** How to design ''local rules'' achieving the desired ''global properties''? |
| − | * ''' | + | ** Non-trivial but approaches exist. |
| − | * '''Testing''' a proposed self-organizing system with respect to a given goal | + | |
| + | * '''Design of the communication / interaction protocol''': | ||
| + | ** Degrees of freedom and adaptability | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Simple versus chaotic behavior''': Can we describe the system state? | ||
| + | ** The state of some self-organizing systems can be easily modeled (firefly sync) | ||
| + | ** The state of other self-organizing systems cannot be modeled, they exhibit chaotic behavior, which makes it impossible to predict future states. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Robustness issues''' | ||
| + | ** Malicious nodes, faults, defects | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Testing''': | ||
| + | ** It can be very difficult to test a proposed self-organizing system with respect to a given goal (many entities, large operational range, chaotic behavior) | ||
| + | ** Rare events may lead to major global effects. | ||
| + | ** Repeatability of results | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''User aspects''' | ||
| + | ** To what extend can today’s systems be replaced or complemented by self-organizing systems, taking into account | ||
| + | *** constraints and acceptance of the technology and | ||
| + | *** risks for users? | ||
===Ideas=== | ===Ideas=== | ||
* "Immune system" as an umbrella around self-organizing system | * "Immune system" as an umbrella around self-organizing system | ||
* Optimize probability to end up in desired state | * Optimize probability to end up in desired state | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Side note=== | ||
| + | * Heylighen: "interaction pattern are not specified" | ||
Latest revision as of 15:53, 12 July 2010
Contents
Group members
- Christian Bettstetter
- Hermann de Meer
- Johannes Klinglmayr
- Martina Umlauft
Challenges
- Design of emergence:
- How to design local rules achieving the desired global properties?
- Non-trivial but approaches exist.
- Design of the communication / interaction protocol:
- Degrees of freedom and adaptability
- Simple versus chaotic behavior: Can we describe the system state?
- The state of some self-organizing systems can be easily modeled (firefly sync)
- The state of other self-organizing systems cannot be modeled, they exhibit chaotic behavior, which makes it impossible to predict future states.
- Robustness issues
- Malicious nodes, faults, defects
- Testing:
- It can be very difficult to test a proposed self-organizing system with respect to a given goal (many entities, large operational range, chaotic behavior)
- Rare events may lead to major global effects.
- Repeatability of results
- User aspects
- To what extend can today’s systems be replaced or complemented by self-organizing systems, taking into account
- constraints and acceptance of the technology and
- risks for users?
- To what extend can today’s systems be replaced or complemented by self-organizing systems, taking into account
Ideas
- "Immune system" as an umbrella around self-organizing system
- Optimize probability to end up in desired state
Side note
- Heylighen: "interaction pattern are not specified"
