Advertisement

Programmed Graph Rewriting with Time for Simulation-Based Design

  • Eugene Syriani
  • Hans Vangheluwe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5063)

Abstract

The Discrete EVent system Specification (DEVS) formalism allows for highly modular, hierarchical modelling of timed, reactive systems. DEVS can be used to describe complex control structures for programmed graph transformation. A side-effect of this approach is the introduction of an explicit notion of time. In this paper we show how the explicit notion of time allows for the simulation-based design of reactive systems such as modern computer games. We use the well-known game of PacMan as an example and model its dynamics with programmed graph transformation based on DEVS. This also allows the modelling of player behaviour, incorporating data about human players’ behaviour and reaction times. Thus, a model of both player and game is obtained which can be used to evaluate, through simulation, the playability of a game design. We propose a playability performance measure and vary parameters of the PacMan game. For each variant of the game thus obtained, simulation yields a value for the quality of the game. This allows us to choose an “optimal” (from a playability point of view) game configuration. The user model is subsequently replaced by a visual interface to a real player and the game model is executed using a real-time DEVS simulator.

Keywords

Graph Transformation Time Advance Graph Transformation Rule Decider Block Real Player 
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.
    Nickel, U., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: Tool demonstration: The FUJABA environment. In: ICSE 2000, pp. 742–745 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Kalmar, Z., Neema, S., Shi, F., Vizhanyo, A.: The design of a language for model transformations. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 5, 261–288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Mezei, G., Charaf, H.: Model transformation with a visual control flow language. International Journal of Computer Science (IJCS) 1, 45–53 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schürr, A., Winter, A.J., Zündorf, A.: Graph grammar engineering with PROGRES. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 219–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schürr, A., Rötschke, T., Amelunxen, C., Königs, A.: MOFLON: A Standard-Compliant Metamodeling Framework with Graph Transformations. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 361–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: Programmed graph rewriting with DEVS. In: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE), pp. 134–149 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heckel, R.: Graph transformation in a nutshell. In: Proceedings of the School on Foundations of Visual Modelling Techniques (FoVMT 2004) of the SegraVis Research Training Network. ENTCS, vol. 148, pp. 187–198. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: AToM3: A tool for multi-formalism and meta-modelling. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zeigler, B.P.: Multifacetted Modelling and Discrete Event Simulation. Academic Press, London (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bolduc, J.S., Vangheluwe, H.: The modelling and simulation package PythonDEVS for classical hierarchical DEVS. MSDL technical report MSDL-TR-2001-01, McGill University (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Event-Driven Grammars: Towards the Integration of Meta-modelling and Graph Transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 54–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart, P., Nilsson, N., Raphael, B.: A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4, 100–107 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gyapay, S., Heckel, R., Varró, D.: Graph transformation with time: Causality and logical clocks. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 120–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaitsev, A.V., Skorik, Y.A.: Mathematical description of sensorimotor reaction time distribution. Human Physiology 28(4), 494–497 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Syriani
    • 1
  • Hans Vangheluwe
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations