Difference between revisions of "Group 2"
From Self-Organization Wiki
(→Challenges) |
(→Challenges) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* '''Design of communication | * '''Design of communication | ||
| − | * ''' | + | * '''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. | |
| − | |||
Revision as of 12:17, 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?
- Communication pattern
- Non-trivial but approaches exist.
- Design of communication
- 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.
- Malicious nodes, faults, defects
- Rare events may lead to major global effects. Repeatability of results
- Testing:
- Testing a proposed self-organizing system with respect to a given goal can be difficult (many entities, large operational range)
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"
