Friam

Sensor networks and self-organization

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Jochen Fromm-3

Sensor networks and self-organization

I just came back from a 3-day Summer School on self-organization here
in Germany. Although it was about self-organization in general,
and the participants were coming from all major German universities,
nearly every member of the Summer School except myself was involved in
developing software for WSNs (Wireless Sensor Networks), mostly with
simulations (using ns-2) or real hardware, mainly with German ESB
nodes, see http://www.scatterweb.net/research_products/esb.en.html

There were also surprisingly few discussions about the definitions
of self-organization or emergence. On the one hand this is
a positive thing, since these discussions are always a bit like
the debates at the first councils. At the first council of
Nicaea for example, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine
in 325, there was a debate if the Son is of the same substance
as the Father, or if they are only of similar substance. It is
the kind of problem you meet if you treat abstract concepts in
a wrong way as terms for concrete things. These debates appear
from a practical point of view often as irrelevant, meaningless
and unnecessary.

On the other hand I think that there is more to self-organization
than sensor-networks, although sensor networks are probably
typical examples of systems that need self-organization: systems
that are very small or very large, very distributed or very remote,
etc. Yet even in sensor-networks real self-organization - which is so
badly needed - is more a wish than a reality. Popular algorithms
(for instance routing protocols like AODV and DSR) are often only as
simple as possible and rely on flooding without any spectacular form
of self-organization. Concrete attempts to realize self-organization
in WSNs usually end in a cramp. All participants for instance agreed
that complicated algorithms to determine the topology of large sensor
networks would probably never work in practice, see the Video
"Geometry-Based Reasoning for a Large Sensor Network"
at http://www.math.tu-bs.de/~ali/fk-geometry-mpeg4v2.avi
(attention, quite large - 113 MB - but still worth it)

So what do you think ? Are self-organization and sensor-networks
synonymous ? Is it the best area to realize self-organization,
or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ?

-J.

Russell Standish

Sensor networks and self-organization

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> So what do you think ? Are self-organization and sensor-networks
> synonymous ? Is it the best area to realize self-organization,
> or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ?
>
> -J.
>

Certainly not synonymous. But I could imagine situations where
self-organised behaviour is a useful property of a such a sensor
network.

Cheers

--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parks, Raymond

Sensor networks and self-organization

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-3

Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> So what do you think ?

Self organization is a part of many systems/networks whether sensors
or otherwise.

> Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ?

No.

> Is it the best area to realize self-organization,
> or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ?

I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize
self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - that is the
sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of
self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications.

One application I have heard of would be robots randomly placed in an
area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent society fails if
they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for losses due
to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is
malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot
freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in
simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed
for an actual test.

There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has
teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams.

The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication within dynamic
self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of
broadcast routing and continuous re-routing.

One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat System (you
can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various
components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS sensors, but that
is not their primary function.

--
Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov
IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024
IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359
http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641
http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288

Gus Koehler

Sensor networks and self-organization

See attached.

Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
Principal
Time Structures
1545 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895
Cell: 916-716-1740
www.timestructures.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Raymond Parks
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization

Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> So what do you think ?

Self organization is a part of many systems/networks whether sensors or
otherwise.

> Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ?

No.

> Is it the best area to realize self-organization, or just another
> example where self-organization is hard to achieve ?

I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize
self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - that is the
sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of
self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications.

One application I have heard of would be robots randomly placed in an
area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent society fails if they
don't cover the entire area. They need to account for losses due to finding
the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is malevolent, then
they need to communicate with each other but cannot freely trust each other.
I've only heard of this performed in simulation. Actual robots were built,
but not in the quantity needed for an actual test.

There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has
teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams.

The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication within dynamic
self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of
broadcast routing and continuous re-routing.

One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat System (you can
research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various components. I
suppose one could call the nodes in FCS sensors, but that is not their
primary function.

--
Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov
IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024
IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359
http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart
Pager:800-690-5288

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independent Robots Team Up For Search Task.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 148992 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060621/55db28f1/attachment-0001.doc

Phil Henshaw-2

Sensor networks and self-organization

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

Well, if sensor networks responded to what they sensed that would be
technically self-organizing wouldn't it? Trouble of course is someone
has to design all that other circuitry and some prefered outcome...

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Raymond Parks
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:27 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization
>
>
> Jochen Fromm wrote:
> >
> > So what do you think ?
>
> Self organization is a part of many systems/networks
> whether sensors
> or otherwise.
>
> > Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ?
>
> No.
>
> > Is it the best area to realize self-organization,
> > or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ?
>
> I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize
> self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static -
> that is the
> sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of
> self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications.
>
> One application I have heard of would be robots randomly
> placed in an
> area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent
> society fails if
> they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for
> losses due
> to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is
> malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot
> freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in
> simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed
> for an actual test.
>
> There's also the Robot World Cup
> <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has
> teams of agents/robots
> that self-organize into football teams.
>
> The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication
> within dynamic
> self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of
> broadcast routing and continuous re-routing.
>
> One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat
> System (you
> can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various
> components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS
> sensors, but that
> is not their primary function.
>
> --
> Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov
> IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024
> IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359
> http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641
> http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Jochen Fromm-3

Sensor networks and self-organization

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

No, they don't self-organize into football teams. It is perhaps
what they should do, but reality looks very different. Two of my
colleagues are taking part in the RoboCup and just came back
from the tournament in Bremen (see http://carpenoctem.das-lab.net/).
>From what I have learned, the RoboCup teams do the following:
the AIBOs crawl around aimlessly and hit the own goal, the fragile
humanoid robots fall backwards everytime they kick the ball,
and only the robots of the middle size league offer more or less
interesting games. Even they are unable to coordinate and organize
themselves, usually all team members head for the ball at the same time
until they form a big knot of robots, and if one manages to get behind
the ball he tries to kick the ball directly towards the goal. Not a
very smart behavior, and no robot team is able to implement a
more complex behavior such as give-and-go.

Even real soccer teams don't organize themselves as you can observe
in the world cup currently. Every team member has a clear role
(goal keeper-defender-midfielder-striker), the overall strategy
is determined by the coach or trainer, and most of the goals are
caused by some kind of accident. I like to consider a soccer game
as a sort of co-evolution conflict between two adaptive systems,
where each system tries to adapt itself to the other. Normally
the boundary between both systems shifts slowly from one goal
to the other, on the one side are the players of team 1, on
the other side are players of team 2. A goal is usually only
possible if the balance is disrupted quickly enough by an
accident or a surprise attack, if the imbalance is strongly
enough to disrupt the process of adaptation.

-J.

-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization

There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has
teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams.

Phil Henshaw-2

Sensor networks and self-organization

Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first
'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many
missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more
complex way?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization
>
>
>
> No, they don't self-organize into football teams. It is
> perhaps what they should do, but reality looks very
> different. Two of my colleagues are taking part in the
> RoboCup and just came back from the tournament in Bremen (see
> http://carpenoctem.das-lab.net/).
> >From what I have learned, the RoboCup teams do the following:
> the AIBOs crawl around aimlessly and hit the own goal, the fragile
> humanoid robots fall backwards everytime they kick the ball,
> and only the robots of the middle size league offer more or less
> interesting games. Even they are unable to coordinate and organize
> themselves, usually all team members head for the ball at the
> same time
> until they form a big knot of robots, and if one manages to
> get behind the ball he tries to kick the ball directly
> towards the goal. Not a very smart behavior, and no robot
> team is able to implement a
> more complex behavior such as give-and-go.
>
> Even real soccer teams don't organize themselves as you can observe
> in the world cup currently. Every team member has a clear role
> (goal keeper-defender-midfielder-striker), the overall strategy
> is determined by the coach or trainer, and most of the goals are
> caused by some kind of accident. I like to consider a soccer
> game as a sort of co-evolution conflict between two adaptive
> systems, where each system tries to adapt itself to the
> other. Normally the boundary between both systems shifts
> slowly from one goal to the other, on the one side are the
> players of team 1, on the other side are players of team 2. A
> goal is usually only
> possible if the balance is disrupted quickly enough by an
> accident or a surprise attack, if the imbalance is strongly
> enough to disrupt the process of adaptation.
>
> -J.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Parks
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:27 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization
>
> There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>,
> which has
> teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams.
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Jochen Fromm-3

Sensor networks and self-organization

Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess
it that the first machines with human-like intelligence
and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years
perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or
http://www.longbets.org/15). This will certainly be a
major breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition.
I personally think it is easier to build intelligent
agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds,
and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual
world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at
http://tinyurl.com/j4qck or http://tinyurl.com/k88wd

-J.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:43 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization

Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first
'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many
missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more
complex way?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

Phil Henshaw-2

Sensor networks and self-organization

My guess it won't happen that soon. The major hurdle I see is
intelligence doesn't come from passively conforming to an imposed
landscape (Darwin's idea), but from creatively exploring discovered ones
(the living systems idea). ...I think maybe we're making great
progress, but sort of need to start over with our design principle
reversed!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:37 AM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization
>
>
>
> Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess
> it that the first machines with human-like intelligence
> and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years
> perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or
> http://www.longbets.org/15). This will > certainly be a
> major
> breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition.
> I personally think it is easier to build intelligent
> agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds,
> and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual
> world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at

http://tinyurl.com/j4qck or http://tinyurl.com/k88wd

-J.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:43 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization

Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first
'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many
missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more
complex way?

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Parks, Raymond

Sensor networks and self-organization

Phil Henshaw wrote:
> My guess it won't happen that soon. The major hurdle I see is
> intelligence doesn't come from passively conforming to an imposed
> landscape (Darwin's idea), but from creatively exploring discovered ones
> (the living systems idea). ...I think maybe we're making great
> progress, but sort of need to start over with our design principle
> reversed!

In reply to Jochen Fromm:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
> > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:37 AM
> > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization
> >
> >
> >
> > Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess
> > it that the first machines with human-like intelligence
> > and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years
> > perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or
> > http://www.longbets.org/15). This will > certainly be a
> > major
> > breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition.
> > I personally think it is easier to build intelligent
> > agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds,
> > and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual
> > world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at
> http://tinyurl.com/j4qck or http://tinyurl.com/k88wd

My opinion, FWIW, is that we will never see machines exhibit
human-like intelligence and self-consciousness. I'm not saying that
machines will never exhibit intelligence and self-consciousness
equivalent to humans. I'm saying that machines will be different but
equal. Machines may come to the same conclusion as a human but will
follow different paths in reasoning to that conclusion. Especially if
we make machines that are self-aware/self-conscious, we will see that
their behaviours will be unexpected. The analog is the difference
between human intelligence and that of animals. When faced with the
same circumstances (or equivalent) that require the same intelligence as
an animal faced with the circumstance, humans will make different
choices than the animals. This, of course, presumes that one believes
that animals are intelligent, albeit to a lesser degree than humans.

--
Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov
IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024
IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359
http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641
http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288