Difference between revisions of "Group 2"
From Self-Organization Wiki
(→Challenges) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* '''Design of emergence''': | * '''Design of emergence''': | ||
** How to design ''local rules'' achieving the desired ''global properties''? | ** How to design ''local rules'' achieving the desired ''global properties''? | ||
| − | |||
** Non-trivial but approaches exist. | ** Non-trivial but approaches exist. | ||
| − | * '''Design of communication | + | * '''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''': |
| − | * Rare events may lead to major global effects. Repeatability of results | + | ** 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=== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:53, 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"
