Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design
Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized app...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Crespi, Valentino [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2008 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Agent-based system’s engineering |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Autonomous robots - Springer US, 1994, 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:24 ; year:2008 ; number:3 ; day:05 ; month:01 ; pages:303-313 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2052746366 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2052746366 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502215259.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2052746366 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 620 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Crespi, Valentino |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2008 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Bottom-up design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Top-down design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Agent-based system’s engineering | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Robotic agents | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Distributed computing and control | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Design methodology | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Galstyan, Aram |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lerman, Kristina |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Autonomous robots |d Springer US, 1994 |g 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 |w (DE-627)186689446 |w (DE-600)1252189-9 |w (DE-576)053002199 |x 0929-5593 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2008 |g number:3 |g day:05 |g month:01 |g pages:303-313 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TEC | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_21 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 24 |j 2008 |e 3 |b 05 |c 01 |h 303-313 | ||
| author_variant |
v c vc a g ag k l kl |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09295593:2008----::odwvbtoumtoooisnuta |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2008 |
| publishDate |
2008 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ Crespi, Valentino verfasserin aut Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology Galstyan, Aram aut Lerman, Kristina aut Enthalten in Autonomous robots Springer US, 1994 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 (DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 0929-5593 nnns volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 24 2008 3 05 01 303-313 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ Crespi, Valentino verfasserin aut Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology Galstyan, Aram aut Lerman, Kristina aut Enthalten in Autonomous robots Springer US, 1994 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 (DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 0929-5593 nnns volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 24 2008 3 05 01 303-313 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ Crespi, Valentino verfasserin aut Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology Galstyan, Aram aut Lerman, Kristina aut Enthalten in Autonomous robots Springer US, 1994 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 (DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 0929-5593 nnns volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 24 2008 3 05 01 303-313 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ Crespi, Valentino verfasserin aut Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology Galstyan, Aram aut Lerman, Kristina aut Enthalten in Autonomous robots Springer US, 1994 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 (DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 0929-5593 nnns volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 24 2008 3 05 01 303-313 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ Crespi, Valentino verfasserin aut Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology Galstyan, Aram aut Lerman, Kristina aut Enthalten in Autonomous robots Springer US, 1994 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 (DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 0929-5593 nnns volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 24 2008 3 05 01 303-313 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Autonomous robots 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Autonomous robots 24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313 volume:24 year:2008 number:3 day:05 month:01 pages:303-313 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology |
| dewey-raw |
620 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Autonomous robots |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Crespi, Valentino @@aut@@ Galstyan, Aram @@aut@@ Lerman, Kristina @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2008-01-05T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
186689446 |
| dewey-sort |
3620 |
| id |
OLC2052746366 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2052746366</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502215259.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2052746366</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Crespi, Valentino</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bottom-up design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Top-down design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Agent-based system’s engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Distributed computing and control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Design methodology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Galstyan, Aram</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lerman, Kristina</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Autonomous robots</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1994</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)186689446</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1252189-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)053002199</subfield><subfield code="x">0929-5593</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2008</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:01</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:303-313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2008</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">01</subfield><subfield code="h">303-313</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Crespi, Valentino |
| spellingShingle |
Crespi, Valentino ddc 620 misc Bottom-up design misc Top-down design misc Agent-based system’s engineering misc Robotic agents misc Distributed computing and control misc Design methodology Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| authorStr |
Crespi, Valentino |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)186689446 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0929-5593 |
| topic_title |
620 VZ Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design Bottom-up design Top-down design Agent-based system’s engineering Robotic agents Distributed computing and control Design methodology |
| topic |
ddc 620 misc Bottom-up design misc Top-down design misc Agent-based system’s engineering misc Robotic agents misc Distributed computing and control misc Design methodology |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 620 misc Bottom-up design misc Top-down design misc Agent-based system’s engineering misc Robotic agents misc Distributed computing and control misc Design methodology |
| topic_browse |
ddc 620 misc Bottom-up design misc Top-down design misc Agent-based system’s engineering misc Robotic agents misc Distributed computing and control misc Design methodology |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Autonomous robots |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
186689446 |
| dewey-tens |
620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Autonomous robots |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)186689446 (DE-600)1252189-9 (DE-576)053002199 |
| title |
Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2052746366 (DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p |
| title_full |
Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| author_sort |
Crespi, Valentino |
| journal |
Autonomous robots |
| journalStr |
Autonomous robots |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2008 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
303 |
| author_browse |
Crespi, Valentino Galstyan, Aram Lerman, Kristina |
| container_volume |
24 |
| class |
620 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Crespi, Valentino |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |
| dewey-full |
620 |
| title_sort |
top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| title_auth |
Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| abstract |
Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4306 |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Galstyan, Aram Lerman, Kristina |
| author2Str |
Galstyan, Aram Lerman, Kristina |
| ppnlink |
186689446 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:22:36.364Z |
| _version_ |
1803575630355234816 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2052746366</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502215259.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2052746366</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10514-007-9080-5-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Crespi, Valentino</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Traditionally, two alternative design approaches have been available to engineers: top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down approach, the design process starts with specifying the global system state and assuming that each component has global knowledge of the system, as in a centralized approach. The solution is then decentralized by replacing global knowledge with communication. In the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, the design starts with specifying requirements and capabilities of individual components, and the global behavior is said to emerge out of interactions among constituent components and between components and the environment. In this paper we present a comparative study of both approaches with particular emphasis on applications to multi-agent system engineering and robotics. We outline the generic characteristics of both approaches from the MAS perspective, and identify three elements that we believe should serve as criteria for how and when to apply either of the approaches. We demonstrate our analysis on a specific example of load balancing problem in robotics. We also show that under certain assumptions on the communication and the external environment, both bottom-up and top-down methodologies produce very similar solutions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bottom-up design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Top-down design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Agent-based system’s engineering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic agents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Distributed computing and control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Design methodology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Galstyan, Aram</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lerman, Kristina</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Autonomous robots</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1994</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2008), 3 vom: 05. Jan., Seite 303-313</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)186689446</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1252189-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)053002199</subfield><subfield code="x">0929-5593</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2008</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:01</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:303-313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9080-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2008</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">01</subfield><subfield code="h">303-313</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399617 |