Abstract—We give a denotational framework (a “meta model”) within which certain properties of models of computation can be compared. It describes concurrent processes in general terms as sets of possible behaviors. A process is determinate if, given the constraints imposed by the inputs, there are exactly one or exactly zero behaviors. Compositions of processes are processes with behaviors in the intersection of the behaviors of the component processes. The interaction between processes is through signals, which are collections of events. Each event is a value-tag pair, where the tags can come from a partially ordered or totally ordered set. Timed models are where the set of tags is totally ordered. Synchronous events share the same tag, and synchronous signals contain events with the same set of tags. Synchronous processes have only synchronous signals as behaviors. Strict causality (in timed tag systems) and continuity (in untimed tag systems) ensure determinacy under certain technical conditions. The framework is used to compare certain essential features of various models of computation, including Kahn process networks, dataflow, sequential processes, concurrent sequential processes with rendezvous, Petri nets, and discrete-event systems. I.

Copyright © 2006, by the author(s).

This paper studies the semantics of hierarchical finite state machines (FMS's) that are composed using various concurrency models, particularly dataflow, discrete-events, and synchronous/reactive modeling. It is argued that all three combinations are useful, and that the concurrency model can be selected independently of the decision to use hierarchical FSM's. In contrast, most formalisms that combine FSM's with concurrency models, such as Statecharts (and its variants) and hybrid systems, tightly integrate the FSM semantics with the concurrency semantics. An implementation that supports three combinations is described.

An autonomous robot o ers a challenging and ideal field for the study of intelligent architectures. Autonomy within a rational behavior could be evaluated by the robot's effectiveness and robustness in carrying out tasks in different and ill-known environments. It raises major requirements on the control architecture. Furthermore, a robot as a programmable machine brings up other architectural needs, such asthe ease and quality of its specification and programming. This paper describes an integrated architecture allowing a mobile robot to plan its tasks, taking into account temporal and domain constraints, to perform corresponding actions and to control their execution in real-time, while being reactive to possible events. The general architecture is composed of three levels: a decision level, an execution level and a functional level. The later is composed of modules that embed the functions achieving sensor data processing and e ector control. The decision level is goal and event-driven, it may have several layers, according to the application; their basic structure is a planner/supervisor pair that enables to integrate deliberation and reaction. The proposed architecture relies naturally on several representations, programming paradigms and processing approaches meeting the precise requirements specified for each level. We developed proper tools to meet these specifications and implement each level of the architecture: IxTeT a temporal planner, prs a procedural system for task refinement and supervision, Kheops for the reactive control of the functional level, and G en oM for the specification and integration of modules at that level. Validation of temporal and logical properties of the reactive parts of the system, through these tools, are presented. Instances of the proposed architecture have been already integrated into several indoor and outdoor robots. Examples from real world experimentations are provided and analyzed.

This paper addresses the design of reactive real-time embedded systems. Such systems are often heterogeneous in implementation technologies and design styles, for example by combining hardware ASICs with embedded software. The concurrent design process for such embedded systems involves solving the specification, validation, and synthesis problems. We review the variety of approaches to these problems that have been taken.

Abstract—The theory of latency-insensitive design is presented as the foundation of a new correct-by-construction methodology to design complex systems by assembling intellectual property components. Latency-insensitive designs are synchronous distributed systems and are realized by composing functional modules that exchange data on communication channels according to an appropriate protocol. The protocol works on the assumption that the modules are stallable, a weak condition to ask them to obey. The goal of the protocol is to guarantee that latency-insensitive designs composed of functionally correct modules behave correctly independently of the channel latencies. This allows us to increase the robustness of a design implementation because any delay variations of a channel can be “recovered ” by changing the channel latency while the overall system functionality remains unaffected. As a consequence, an important application of the proposed theory is represented by the latency-insensitive methodology to design large digital integrated circuits by using deep submicrometer technologies. Index Terms—Deep submicrometer design, formal methods, latency-insensitive protocols, system design. I.

at "components" and "frameworks" might entail. Otherwise, we have little hope of getting a useful model because the prevailing component architectures in software engineering are not suitable for embedded systems. Most frameworks have four service categories: . Ontology. A framework defines what it means to be a component. Is a component a subroutine? A state transformation? A process? An object? An aggregate of components may or may not be a component. Certain semantic properties of components also flow from the definition. Is a component active or passive---can it autonomously initiate interactions with other components or does it simply react to stimulus? . Epistemology. A framework defines states of knowledge. What does the framework know about the components? What do components know about one another? Can components interrogate one another to obtain information (that is, is there reflection or introspection)? What do components know<F1

Abstract — Twelve years ago, Proceedings of the IEEE devoted a special section to the synchronous languages. This article discusses the improvements, difficulties, and successes that have occured with the synchronous languages since then. Today, synchronous languages have been established as a technology of choice for modeling, specifying, validating, and implementing real-time embedded applications. The paradigm of synchrony has emerged as an engineer-friendly design method based on mathematicallysound tools.

Sensor networks are gaining a central role in the research community. This paper addresses some of the issues arising from the use of sensor networks in control applications. Classical control theory proves to be insufficient in modeling distributed control problems where issues of communication delay, jitter, and time synchronization between components are not negligible. After discussing our hardware and software platform and our target application, we review useful models of computation and then suggest a mixed model for design, analysis, and synthesis of control algorithms within sensor networks. We present a hierarchical model composed of continuous time-trigger components at the low level and discrete event-triggered components at the high level. Keywords—Distributed control, distributed pursuit–evasion game (DPEG), embedded, Mica, mote, NesC, pursuit–evasion game (PEG), sensor network, TinyOS. I.

The science of computation has systematically abstracted away the physical world. Embedded software systems, however, engage the physical world. Time, concurrency, liveness, robustness, continuums, reactivity, and resource management must be remarried to computation. Prevailing abstractions of computational systems leave out these "non-functional" aspects. This chapter explains why embedded software is not just software on small computers, and why it therefore needs fundamentally new views of computation. It suggests component architectures based on a principle called "actor-oriented design," where actors interact according to a model of computation, and describes some models of computation that are suitable for embedded software. It then suggests that actors can define interfaces that declare dynamic aspects that are essential to embedded software, such as temporal properties. These interfaces can be structured in a "system-level type system" that supports the sort of design-time and run-time type checking that conventional software benefits from.