Difference between revisions of "Case Studies for Robust Self-Organizing Systems"

From Self-Organization Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: ==Parliament== The parliament is (up to a certain minimum size) robust against instant and repeating (spreading) * failures/removals of nodes (i.e., representatives) * faulty/unexpected/...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Individual Systems==
 +
 +
* Starfish, human body
 +
 +
* Cope with lost/damaged parts
 +
* Regrow/relearn capabilities (self-healing) for survivability
 +
* Adaptable
 +
 +
** It's not clear if self-organization occurs with external excitement (disturbance) or just centralized control; e.g., if the healing/adaptation happens because the genes are coded that way or they evolve and adapt.
 +
 +
==Collective Systems==
 +
 +
* Wealth distribution (pareto), file sharing
 +
 +
* Cope with environmental conditions, resource value, government interventions, wars, closed platforms, law suits
 +
* Regroup, redistribute, reopen
 +
* Adaptable
 +
 +
* Self-organization with external disturbance, but no centralized control.
 +
 +
==Engineered Systems==
 +
 +
* Routing, TCP behavior
 +
 +
* Cope with environmental conditions, disasters, unknowns
 +
* Regroup, reroute, retransmit
 +
* Adaptable
 +
 +
* Self-organization with external disturbance, but no centralized control.
 +
 
==Parliament==
 
==Parliament==
  

Revision as of 17:30, 13 July 2009

Individual Systems

  • Starfish, human body
  • Cope with lost/damaged parts
  • Regrow/relearn capabilities (self-healing) for survivability
  • Adaptable
    • It's not clear if self-organization occurs with external excitement (disturbance) or just centralized control; e.g., if the healing/adaptation happens because the genes are coded that way or they evolve and adapt.

Collective Systems

  • Wealth distribution (pareto), file sharing
  • Cope with environmental conditions, resource value, government interventions, wars, closed platforms, law suits
  • Regroup, redistribute, reopen
  • Adaptable
  • Self-organization with external disturbance, but no centralized control.

Engineered Systems

  • Routing, TCP behavior
  • Cope with environmental conditions, disasters, unknowns
  • Regroup, reroute, retransmit
  • Adaptable
  • Self-organization with external disturbance, but no centralized control.

Parliament

The parliament is (up to a certain minimum size) robust against instant and repeating (spreading)

  • failures/removals of nodes (i.e., representatives)
  • faulty/unexpected/unwanted behaviour of nodes, and
  • malicious behaviour of nodes.

It shows the following properties:

  • Self-healing due to iterated renewals based on elections
  • External observation from mass press and citizens
  • Well-defined structure and function
    • Mandate distribution is defined by distributions of votes
    • Government is defined by major number of mandates (mostly by coalitions)
    • Goal is to make decisions and laws
  • Each representative may act as attractor, detractor, or neutral node
  • Adaptive to change in the social environment
  • Shows the emergent property of issued laws initiated by some voters, set up by its representatives, and valid for all citizens
  • Fullfills all attributes of dependability: high availability, high reliability, safe, maintable, and secure

Ant Nest

  • Goal
    • dependably find food and bring it back to the nest
  • Mechansim
    • randomly explore the surroundings leave trails from foodsources back to the nest (via pheromone)
    • follow the pheromone trail with the highest pheromone concentration - but allow for deviations from that path
  • Robustness
    • against dynamic food location changes (food churn)
    • against obstacles appearing on the path
    • against ants disappearing
  • Problems
    • degradation of robustness if high concentration of artificial pheromones are deposited

P2P Networks (Example: File Sharing)

  • Goal
    • provide data items to participating peers
  • Mechansim
    • distributed storage of data items on the peer nodes
    • distributed reference infos on the peer nodes (normally via DHT)
  • Robustness
    • against leaving/failing and joining peer nodes (node churn)
    • against bottlenecks in underlying IP network
  • Problems
    • attacks
    • manipulations
    • malicious nodes


Self-organizing traffic lights

  • Waiting time depends on number of cars waiting (only sensor being a single camera)
  • No explicit communication between the lights - communication media = cars
  • Emergence of grups of cars that propagate on a green wave
  • Robust to changes in traffic situation, break-down of single lights (if they fall into a fail-safe state, such as a flashing yellow light or shutting down completely).
  • Discussion: Depends a lot on the density of the traffic (jamming situations). Explicit communication for traffic may be desirable, even though that may go against the self-organizing nature of the system.

Self-organizing network routing

  • Any routing protocol broadcasting to discover a specific route (example: choose route which contains the packet with the highest TTL)
  • Ant routing
  • Robustness: break-down of nodes/lines, overload in parts of the network are handled in a self-organized way.
  • Limits: Package loss (needs to be handled by the upper layers)

Viruses and worms (whether this is truly a self-organizing network was left open for discussion)

  • Worms start out as sngle "agent" that broadcasts itself throughout the network
  • Infected network-node is closed and can't be infected again.
  • Is this "epidemic" distribution a kind of self-organization?
    • Multiple agents
    • Distribution
  • But:
    • Emergence of structure?
    • Adaptability to changes from the environment?