Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 551–566 | Cite as

Model-based design: a report from the trenches of the DARPA Urban Challenge

  • Jonathan SprinkleEmail author
  • J. Mikael Eklund
  • Humberto Gonzalez
  • Esten Ingar Grøtli
  • Ben Upcroft
  • Alex Makarenko
  • Will Uther
  • Michael Moser
  • Robert Fitch
  • Hugh Durrant-Whyte
  • S. Shankar Sastry
Open Access
Expert's Voice

Abstract

The impact of model-based design on the software engineering community is impressive, and recent research in model transformations, and elegant behavioral specifications of systems has the potential to revolutionize the way in which systems are designed. Such techniques aim to raise the level of abstraction at which systems are specified, to remove the burden of producing application-specific programs with general-purpose programming. For complex real-time systems, however, the impact of model-driven approaches is not nearly so widespread. In this paper, we present a perspective of model-based design researchers who joined with software experts in robotics to enter the DARPA Urban Challenge, and to what extent model-based design techniques were used. Further, we speculate on why, according to our experience and the testimonies of many teams, the full promises of model-based design were not widely realized for the competition. Finally, we present some thoughts for the future of model-based design in complex systems such as these, and what advancements in modeling are needed to motivate small-scale projects to use model-based design in these domains.

Keywords

Vehicle Model Autonomous Vehicle Controller Area Network Defense Advance Research Project Agency Defense Advance Research Project Agency 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was due to the tremendous effort of the Sydney-Berkeley Driving Team, which entered the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2006. Team members who performed work tangential to that described in this paper include Alen Alempijevic, Ashod Donikian, Todd Templeton, Eric Chang, Pannag R. Sanketi, David Johnson, Jan Biermeyer, Vason P. Srini, Christopher Brooks, Mark Godwin, and many others who donated their time and efforts. The Sydney-Berkeley Driving Team was supported in part by Rio Tinto, Komatsu, Chess at UC Berkeley, Toyota, ZeroC, and Advantech. Additional in-kind support was provided in the form of discounts on equipment from the following manufacturers: SICK, NovAtel, and Honeywell. NICTA is funded by the Australian Government as represented by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence program.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    Allgöwer F., Zheng A.: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. Progress in Systems and Control Theory, vol. 26. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basarke C., Berger C., Rumpe B.: Software and systems engineering process and tools for the development of autonomous driving intelligence. J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun. 4(12), 1158–1174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, C., Lee, E.A., Liu, X., Neuendorffer, S., Zhao, Y., Zheng, H.: Heterogeneous concurrent modeling and design in java (Volume 1: Introduction to Ptolemy II). Technical Report UCB/EECS-2008-28, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubey A., Nordstrom S., Keskinpala T., Neema S., Bapty T., Karsai G.: Towards a verifiable real-time, autonomic, fault mitigation framework for large scale real-time systems. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 3(1), 33–52 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eklund J.M., Korenberg M., McLellan P.: Nonlinear system identification and control of chemical processes using fast orthogonal search. J. Process Control 17(9), 742–754 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerkey, B., Vaughan, R.T., Howard, A.: The player/stage project: Tools for multi-robot and distributed sensor systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp 317–323. ICAR 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herpin J., Fekih A., Golconda S., Lakhotia A.: Steering control of the autonomous vehicle: Cajunbot. J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun. 4(12), 1134–1142 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keviczky T., Borrelli F., Balas G.J.: Decentralized receding horizon control for large scale dynamically decoupled systems. Automatica 42(12), 2105–2115 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korenberg M.J.: A robust orthogonal algorithm for system identification and time-series analysis. Biol. Cybern. 60, 267–276 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, E.A., Zheng, H.: Operational semantics of hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC), LNCS, vol. 3414, pp. 25–53. Springer, Berlin, 2005 (Invited Paper)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Long E., Misra A., Sztipanovits J.: Increasing productivity at Saturn. Computer 31(8), 35–43 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nebot, E.: Navigation system design. Lecture Notes, May 2005. Center of Excellence for Autonomous Systems, University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neema, S., Karsai, G.: Embedded control systems language for distributed processing. Technical Report ISIS-04-505, Vanderbilt University, Institute for Software Integrated Systems, 2004Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seetharaman G., Lakhotia A., Blasch E.: Unmanned vehicles come of age: the DARPA Grand Challenge. Computer 39(12), 26–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharp, D.: Avionics product line software architecture flow policies. In: Proceedings of the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, vol. 2, pp. 9.C.4-1–9.C.4-8, 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharp, D.: Hybrid and embedded software technologies for production large-scale systems. In HSCC ’02: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pp. 1–2. Springer, London (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sprinkle J., Ames A.D., Eklund J.M., Mitchell I., Sastry S.S.: Online safety calculations for glideslope recapture. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 1(2), 157–175 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sprinkle, J., Eklund, J.M., Kim, H.J., Sastry, S.: Encoding aerial pursuit/evasion games with fixed wing aircraft into a nonlinear model predictive tracking controller. In: Conference on Decision and Control, 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Upcroft B., Makarenko A., Moser M., Alempijevic A., Donikian A., Uther W., Fitch R.: Empirical evaluation of an autonomous vehicle in an urban environment. J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun. 4(12), 1086–1107 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waydo S., Hauser J., Bailey R., Klavins E., Murray R: UAV as a reliable wingman: a flight demonstration. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 15(4), 680–688 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Sprinkle
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Mikael Eklund
    • 2
  • Humberto Gonzalez
    • 3
  • Esten Ingar Grøtli
    • 4
  • Ben Upcroft
    • 5
  • Alex Makarenko
    • 6
  • Will Uther
    • 7
  • Michael Moser
    • 6
  • Robert Fitch
    • 6
  • Hugh Durrant-Whyte
    • 6
  • S. Shankar Sastry
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.University of Ontario Institute of TechnologyTorontoCanada
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  5. 5.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  6. 6.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  7. 7.National ICT AustraliaSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations