Scenario-Based Design Space Exploration

  • Andy Pimentel
  • Peter van Stralen
Living reference work entry


Modern embedded systems are becoming increasingly multifunctional, and, as a consequence, they more and more have to deal with dynamic application workloads. This dynamism manifests itself in the presence of multiple applications that can simultaneously execute and contend for resources in a single embedded system as well as the dynamic behavior within applications themselves. Such dynamic behavior in application workloads must be taken into account during the early system-level Design Space Exploration (DSE) of Multiprocessor System-on-Chip (MPSoC)-based embedded systems. Scenario-based DSE utilizes the concept of application scenarios to search for optimal mappings of a multi-application workload onto an MPSoC. To this end, scenario-based DSE uses a multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) to identify the mapping with the best average quality for all the application scenarios in the workload. In order to keep the exploration of the scenario-based DSE efficient, fitness prediction is used to obtain the quality of a mapping. This fitness prediction implies that instead of using the entire set of all possible application scenarios, a small but representative subset of application scenarios is used to determine the fitness of mapping solutions. Since the representativeness of such a subset is dependent on the application mappings being explored, these representative subsets of application scenarios are dynamically obtained by means of coexploration of the scenario subset space. In this chapter, we provide an overview of scenario-based DSE and, in particular, present multiple techniques for fitness prediction using representative subsets of application scenarios: a stochastic, deterministic, and hybrid combination.


Pareto Front Application Scenario Misclassification Rate Candidate Mapping Design Space Exploration 
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.


  1. 1.
    Benini L, Bertozzi D, Milano M (2008) Resource management policy handling multiple use-cases in MPSoC platforms using constraint programming. In: Logic programming, Udine. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5366, pp 470–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Veldhuizen DA (2007) Alternative metaheuristics. In: Coello Coello CA, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (eds) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Genetic and evolutionary computation, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coffland JE, Pimentel AD (2003) A software framework for efficient system-level performance evaluation of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the SAC 2003, pp 666–671Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erbas C, Cerav-Erbas S, Pimentel AD (2006) Multiobjective optimization and evolutionary algorithms for the application mapping problem in multiprocessor system-on-chip design. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(3):358–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerstlauer A, Haubelt C, Pimentel A, Stefanov T, Gajski D, Teich J (2009) Electronic system-level synthesis methodologies. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 28(10):1517–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gheorghita SV et al (2009) System-scenario-based design of dynamic embedded systems. ACM Trans Des Autom Electron Syst 14(1):1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gries M (2004) Methods for evaluating and covering the design space during early design development. Integr VSLI J 38(2):131–183Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ha S, Lee C, Yi Y, Kwon S, Joo YP (2006) Hardware-software codesign of multimedia embedded systems: the peace approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on embedded and real-time computing systems and applications, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jia Z, Bautista T, Nunez A, Pimentel A, Thompson M (2013) A system-level infrastructure for multidimensional MP-SoC design space co-exploration. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 13(1s):27:1–27:26Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahn G (1974) The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In: Proceedings of the IFIP congress 74. North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keutzer K, Newton A, Rabaey J, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A (2000) System-level design: orthogonalization of concerns and platform-based design. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 19(12):1523–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kienhuis B, Deprettere EF, van der Wolf P, Vissers KA (2002) A methodology to design programmable embedded systems: the Y-chart approach. In: Embedded processor design challenges. LNCS, vol 2268. Springer, Berlin/New York, pp 18–37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar A, Fernando S, Ha Y, Mesman B, Corporaal H: Multiprocessor systems synthesis for multiple use-cases of multiple applications on FPGA. ACM Trans Des Autom Electron Syst 13(3):1–27 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin G (2006) Overview of the MPSoC design challenge. In: Proceedings of the design automation conference (DAC’06), pp 274–279Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palermo G, Silvano C, Zaccaria V: Robust optimization of SoC architectures: a multi-scenario approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on embedded systems for real-time multimedia (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul JM, Thomas DE, Bobrek A (2006) Scenario-oriented design for single-chip heterogeneous multiprocessors. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr Syst 14(8):868–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pimentel A, Erbas C, Polstra S (2006) A systematic approach to exploring embedded system architectures at multiple abstraction levels. IEEE Trans Comput 55(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piscitelli R, Pimentel A (2012) Design space pruning through hybrid analysis in system-level design space exploration. In: Proceedings of DATE’12, pp 781–786Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quan W, Pimentel AD (2013) An iterative multi-application mapping algorithm for heterogeneous MPSoCs. In: Proceedings of ESTIMedia’13, pp 115–124Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quan W, Pimentel AD (2013) A scenario-based run-time task mapping algorithm for MPSoCs. In: Proceedings of DAC’13, pp 131:1–131:6Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quan W, Pimentel AD (2015) A hybrid task mapping algorithm for heterogeneous MPSoCs. ACM Trans Embed Comput Syst 14(1):14:1–14:25Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schor L, Bacivarov I, Rai D, Yang H, Kang SH, Thiele L (2012) Scenario-based design flow for mapping streaming applications onto on-chip many-core systems. In: Proceedings of CASES’12, pp 71–80Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh AK, Shafique M, Kumar A, Henkel J (2013) Mapping on multi/many-core systems: survey of current and emerging trends. In: Proceedings of DAC’13, pp 1:1–1:10Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Somol P, Novovicova J, Grim J, Pudil P (2008) Dynamic oscillating search algorithm for feature selection. In: Proceedings of the international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR 2008), pp 1–4Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spearman C (1904) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 15(1):72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Stralen P (2014) Applications of scenarios in early embedded system design space exploration. PhD thesis, Informatics Institute, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Stralen P, Pimentel AD (2010) Scenario-based design space exploration of MPSoCs. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computer design (ICCD’10)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Stralen P, Pimentel AD (2010) A trace-based scenario database for high-level simulation of multimedia mp-socs. In: Proceedings of SAMOS’10Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Stralen P, Pimentel AD (2013) Fitness prediction techniques for scenario-based design space exploration. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 32(8):1240–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2000) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Analyzing the state-of-the-art. Evol Comput 8(2):125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zaccaria V, Palermo G, Castro F, Silvano C, Mariani G (2010) Multicube explorer: an open source framework for design space exploration of chip multi-processors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on architecture of computing systems (ARCS), pp 1–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philips HealthcareBestThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations