Advertisement

Constraint-Based Design-Space Exploration and Model Synthesis

  • Sandeep Neema
  • Janos Sztipanovits
  • Gabor Karsai
  • Ken Butts
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2855)

Abstract

An important bottleneck in model-based design of embedded systems is the cost of constructing models. This cost can be significantly decreased by increasing the reuse of existing model components in the design process. This paper describes a tool suite, which has been developed for component-based model synthesis. The DESERT tool suite can be interfaced to existing modeling and analysis environments and can be inserted in various, domain specific design flows. The modeling component of DESERT supports the modeling of design spaces and the automated search for designs that meet structural requirements. DESERT has been introduced in automotive applications and proved to be useful in increasing design productivity.

Keywords

Design Space Object Constraint Language Design Flow Abstract Syntax Structural Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Karsai, G., Sztipanovits, J., Ledeczi, A., Bapty, T.: Model-Integrated Development of Embedded Software. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1), 145–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henzinger, T.A.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 278–292. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sztipanovits, J., Karsai, G.: Model-Integrated Computing. IEEE Computer, 110–112 (April 1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Kent, S.: Engineering Modeling Languages: A Precise Metamodeling Approach. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 159–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, A., France, R., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: Developing UML as a Formal Modeling Notation. LNCS, vol. 1357, pp. 145–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levendovszky, T., Karsai, G.: Model reuse with metamodel based-transformations. In: Gacek, C. (ed.) ICSR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2319, p. 166. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butts, K., Bostic, D., Chutinan, A., Cook, J., Milam, B., Wand, Y.: Usage Scenarios for an Automated Model Compiler. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 66–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Kent, S., Sammut, P.: The MMF Approach to Engineering Object- Oriented Design Languages. In: Workshop on Language Descriptions, Tools and Applications, LDTA 2001 (April 2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neema, S.: Simulink and Stateflow Data Model, see http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu
  11. 11.
    Nordstrom G., Sztipanovits J., Karsai G., Ledeczi, A.: Metamodeling - Rapid Design and Evolution of Domain-Specific Modeling Environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE ECBS 1999, Nashville, TN, April 1999, pp. 68–75 (1999) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Generic Modeling Environment documents, http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu/projects/gme/Doc.html
  13. 13.
    Object Constraint Language Specification, ver. 1.1, Rational Software Corporation, et al. (September 1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neema, S.: Design Space Representation and Management for Embedded Systems Synthesis. Technical Report, ISIS-01-203 (February 2001), http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu/publications/archive/Neema_S_2_0_2003_Design_Spa.pdf
  15. 15.
    Bryant, R.: Symbolic Manipulation with Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Technical Report CMU-CS-92-160 (July 1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    UML Semantics, Ver. 1.1., Rational Software Corporation, 1997. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Ledeczi, A., Davis, J., Neema, S., Eames, B., Nordstrom, G., Prasanna, V., Raghavendra, C., Bakshi, A., Mohanty, S., Mathur, V., Singh, M.: Overview of the Model-based Integrated Simulation Framework, Tech. Report, ISIS-01-201, January 30 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, E.A., Sangiobanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: A framework for comparing models of computations. IEEE Transactions on Computer Aided Design Integrated Circuits 17(12), 1217–1229 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burch, J.R., Passerone, R., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: Modeling Techniques in Design-by-Refinement Methodologies. In: Proc. of IDPT 2002 (June 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L.: Defining platform-based design. EEDesign (February 2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, E.A., Neuendorffer, S., Wirthlin, M.J.: Actor-Oriented Design of Hardware and Software Systems (to be published in Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers) Technical Memorandum UCB/ERL M02/13, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, May 1 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Neema
    • 1
  • Janos Sztipanovits
    • 1
  • Gabor Karsai
    • 1
  • Ken Butts
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Software Integrated SystemsVanderbilt UniversitySta. B. NashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Ford Motor CompanyDearborn

Personalised recommendations