Dagstuhl

kitteninterestAI and Robotics

Nov 15, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

55 views

Local/Global
Behaviour/Specification
Producing a

Global/Local

Outcome

Group Discussion Outbrief

Guy Lemieux, Daniel Coore

Dagstuhl 06361

Overview


Global to local



Local to global



Middle ground?

Ixodes Ricinus

Global to Local


These global objectives and behaviours
can be “compiled down” into locally
specified solutions


Coordinate systems


Sorting


List homomorphisms


Boundary value problems


Questions about G to L


How should these be manifested in a programming
language ?



How should we go about finding more of them?


Biomimetics


Complex Systems Community



Should the global behaviour specification be vague?


Are there multiple correct global behaviours (non
-
determinism)?


Does the global algorithm have to be completely specified?
(imperative versus declarative)


Is it agnostic of actual embedding of the processors?

Local to Global Issues


Can we infer/prove global outcome, or do we have to simulate?


Can we restrict L to make inference possible?


If restriction allows us to characterize trajectory in “robust” way, answer
is yes/maybe (could be difficult)


It may be chaotic with attractor states (good and/or bad)


Example: PDE solving is a form of “local specification/behaviour”
(difference equations) that are run to produce a global outcome



Is Local to Global a convex optimization problem?


If yes, then outcome may be easily predictable



Is this a robust control problem?


Maybe this is how we restrict L to make inference possible


Can this property be used to compile a global specification into local
rules?

… merging G to L

with L to G …

aka “The Conclusion”

“G to L” vs. “L to G” …

How about “G to M to L” instead?


Add an interface “M” between G and L


This may give both G and L something to concretely
refer to as a middle ground


Like an instruction set architecture merges an
algorithm/language to the microarchitecture



Do we need an M ?



The G
-
M
-
L relationship is a recursive hierarchy


G can be replaced by G
-
M2
-
L to give G
-
M2
-
L
-
M
-
L


L can be replaced by G
-
M3
-
L …

Possible Primitives for M


Primitive (vote count to question)


Question: Is this “easy” to do in your “spatial computing paradigm”?


Gradients (7)


Majority votes (7)


Movement transaction (3)


Atomic messages (maybe too low level) (6)


Compartmentalization (across ensemble) (5)


Reduction (maybe too high level) (1)


Maintaining connectedness (1)


Scatter/gather (0)


Globally unique ID (0)


Almost globally unique ID (4)


Can be achieved by generating a large random number at each node