Content deleted Content added
m Linked Halo and Spore |
|||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Structured visual modeling technique}}
{{about|behavior trees for requirement handling|another use|Behavior tree (artificial intelligence, robotics and control)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2025}}{{Use American English|date=May 2025}}
Line 5 ⟶ 6:
[[File:Static Integrated View.jpg|thumb|320px|Building a system out of its requirements – static view]]
A '''behavior tree''' is a structured visual [[modeling]] technique used in [[systems engineering]] and [[software engineering]] to represent
== Overview ==
The extensive amount of detail involved in describing the numerous requirements
The behavior tree representation attempts to eliminate uncertainty by limiting vocabulary to the original requirements.
=== Behavior tree forms ===
Line 24 ⟶ 25:
=== Behavior engineering process ===
Critical aspects of behavior engineering representation and process are listed below.
* The composition tree's role in the overall process is to provide a means to overcome the imperfect knowledge associated with the large set of requirements for a system.
* Behavior engineering uses behavior trees to control complexity while growing a shared understanding of a complex system.
* A shared holistic understanding of a complex system integrates requirements to show its implied
== History ==
Behavior trees and the concepts for their application in [[systems engineering|systems]] and [[software engineering]] were originally developed by Geoff Dromey.<ref name="dromey06FormalizingTrans">R.G.Dromey, [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey-Chapter-Final-20051.pdf "Formalizing the Transition from Requirements to Design"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725053952/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey-Chapter-Final-20051.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}, in "Mathematical Frameworks for Component Software – Models for Analysis and Synthesis", Jifeng He, and Zhiming Liu (Eds.), World Scientific Series on Component-Based Development, pp. 156–187, (Invited Chapter) (2006)</ref><ref name="dromey03K1-Dromey">R.G.Dromey, [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/K1-Dromey.pdf From Requirements to Design: Formalizing the Key Steps] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725054005/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/K1-Dromey.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}, (Invited Keynote Address), SEFM-2003, IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, Brisbane, Sept. 2003, pp. 2–11.</ref><ref>R.L.Glass, [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/Bob-Glass-GSE-CACM.pdf "Is This a Revolutionary Idea or Not"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725054100/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/Bob-Glass-GSE-CACM.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 47(11), pp. 23–25, Nov. 2004.</ref><ref>R.G.Dromey, [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey.pdf "Climbing Over the ‘No Silver Bullet’ Brick Wall"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725054117/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}, IEEE Software, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 118–120, (March 2006)</ref>
* They contained enough information as a set to allow them to be composed – with behavior trees, this allows a system to be built out of its requirements.
Line 71 ⟶ 75:
[[File:Requirement Translation Example.jpg|240px|thumb|Example requirement translation]]
[[File:Requirements Behavior Tree Integration.png|thumb|240px|Requirements behavior tree integration]]
What is clear from the outcome of this process is that, apart from pronouns, definite articles, etc., essentially all the words in the sentences that contribute to the behavior they describe have been accounted for and used.
Line 90 ⟶ 94:
In general, many defects become much more visible when there is an integrated view of the requirements<ref name = "dromey07EngLgeScale"/> and each requirement has been placed in the behavior context where it needs to execute. For example, it is much easier to tell whether a set of conditions or events emanating from a node is complete and consistent. The traceability tags<ref name = "BTNotation" /> also make it easy to refer back to the original natural-language requirements. There is also the potential to automate a number of defect and consistency checks on an integrated behavior tree.<ref name = "buildEnv04">Smith, C., Winter, K., Hayes, I., Dromey, R.G., Lindsay, P., Carrington, D.: [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1342775 An Environment for Building a System Out of Its Requirements], 19th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Linz, Austria, Sept. (2004).</ref>
When all defects have been corrected and the IBT is logically consistent and complete, it becomes a model behavior tree (MBT), which serves as a [[formal specification]] for the system's behavior that has been constructed out of the original requirements. This is the clearly defined stopping point for the analysis phase. With other [[Modeling languages|modeling notations]] and methods (i.e. [[Unified Modeling Language|UML]]), it is less clear-cut when
==== Simulation ====
Line 117 ⟶ 121:
Behavior tree models are executed in a virtual machine called the behavior run-time environment (BRE). The BRE links together [[Component-based software engineering#Software component|components]] using [[middleware]],<ref name="middleware">RTI Inc. 2007 "Meeting Real-Time Requirements in Integrated Defense Systems", [http://www.rti.com/mk/defense_systems.html RTI White Paper] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080920033015/http://www.rti.com/mk/defense_systems.html |date=20 September 2008 }}.</ref> allowing components to be independent programs written in one of several languages that can be executed in a [[Distributed computing|distributed environment]]. The BRE also contains an expression [[parser]] that automatically performs simple operations to minimize the amount of code required to be manually implemented in the component.
The [[Implementation (computing)|implementation]] of components is supported by views that are automatically able to be extracted from the DBT. These views provide the component behavior trees (CRTs) of individual components,
Several
Executable behavior trees have been developed for case studies<ref name="shuttle04">Dromey, R.G. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey-SCESM-2004N.pdf Using Behavior Trees to Model the Autonomous Shuttle System] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725054354/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/publications/dromey/Dromey-SCESM-2004N.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}, 3rd International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM04) ICSE Workshop W5S, Edinburgh, 25 May 2004</ref> including automated train protection, <ref name = "integratingSoftHard08" /> mobile robots with a dynamic object following, an ambulatory infusion pump,<ref name = "integratingSafety05" />
== Applications ==
Line 127 ⟶ 131:
=== Large-scale systems ===
Modeling large-scale systems with
=== Embedded systems ===
Failure of a design to
=== Hardware – software systems ===
Line 139 ⟶ 143:
=== Biological systems ===
Because behavior trees describe complex behavior, they can be used for describing a range of systems not limited to those that are computer-based.<ref name = "contracts02" /> In a biological context,
=== Game AI modeling ===
{{main|Behavior tree (artificial intelligence, robotics and control)}}
While
=== Model-Based Testing ===
[[Model-based testing]] is an approach to software testing that requires testers to create test models from requirements of Software Under Test (SUT). Traditionally, modeling languages such as UML
# It has the same expressiveness level as UML state charts and EDSLPN.
# It is intuitive to use as a modeling notation due to its graphical nature.
# Each behavior tree node has a requirement tag; these greatly facilitate the creation of a traceability matrix from requirement to test artifact.<ref>{{
== Scalability and industry applications ==
[[File:Behavior Engineering Support Environment.png|thumb|225px|
[[File:Integrated Behavior Tree Larger System.png|thumb|225px|Integrated behavior tree – larger system (more than 1000 requirements)]]
The first industry trials to test the feasibility of the method and refine its capability were conducted in 2002. Over the last three years, a number of systematic industry trials on large-scale defense, transportation, and enterprise systems have been conducted.<ref name = "raytheonSysResearch" /><ref name="industryTrialsPaper">Powell, D. 2007. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/docs/ASWEC07_Industry_Powell.pdf Requirements Evaluation Using Behavior Trees – Findings from Industry] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725061927/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/docs/ASWEC07_Industry_Powell.pdf |date=25 July 2011 }}</ref> This work has established that the method scales to systems with large numbers of requirements but also that it is important to use tool support<ref name = "Integrare07" /><ref name = "RaytheonAswec08" /> in order to efficiently navigate and edit the resultant large integrated views of graphical data. On average, over a number of projects, 130 confirmed major defects per 1000 requirements have consistently been found after normal reviews and corrections have been made.<ref name = "industryTrialsPaper" /> With less mature requirements sets, much higher defect rates have been observed.
Line 161 ⟶ 165:
An important part of this work with industry has involved applying the analysis part of the method to six large-scale defense projects for [[Raytheon]] Australia. They see the method as "a key risk mitigation strategy, of use in both solution development and as a means of advising the customer on problems with acquisition documentation".<ref name = "boston08" /><ref>McNicholas, D., (Raytheon Australia), 2007. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/images/publications/dromey2/be-industry-benefits.doc Behavior Engineering Industry Benefits]{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> An outcome of these industry trials has been the joint development<ref name="raytheonAustJoint">Raytheon Australia, 2008. [http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf Understanding grows on Behavior Trees] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090915050633/http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf |date=15 September 2009 }}</ref> with Raytheon Australia of an industry-strength tool to support the analysis, editing, and display of large integrated sets of requirements.<ref name="RaytheonAswec08">Phillips, V., (Raytheon Australia), [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/images/publications/dromey2/bese_master_v2.ppt "Implementing a Behavior Tree Analysis Tool Using Eclipse Development Frameworks"]{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC’08), Perth, March 2008</ref> More extensive details of industry findings can be found on the Behavior Engineering website.<ref name = "BEWebsite">Behavior Engineering. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/ Behavior Engineering website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090301170621/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/ |date=1 March 2009 }}</ref>
Dr. Terry Stevenson (chief technical officer, Raytheon Australia), Mr. Jim Boston (senior project manager, Raytheon Australia), Mr. Adrian Pitman from the [[Defence Materiel Organisation|Australian Defense Materiel Organization]], Dr. Kelvin Ross (CEO, K.J. Ross & Associates), and Christine Cornish (Bushell & Cornish) have provided the special opportunities needed to support this research and to conduct the industry trials<ref name = "raytheonSysResearch" /><ref name = "industryTrialsPaper" /> and live project work. This work has been supported by the [[Australian Research Council]] – [[ARC Centre for Complex Systems]] and funds received from industry.
*[http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf Raytheon Australia – Behavior Trees Joint Development] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090915050633/http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf |date=15 September 2009 }}
*[http://www.behaviorengineering.org/images/publications/dromey2/bese_master_v2.ppt "Implementing a Behavior Tree Analysis Tool Using Eclipse Development Frameworks"]{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} Vincent Phillips, Raytheon Australia.
Line 179 ⟶ 181:
* They can be understood by [[Stakeholder (corporate)|stakeholders]] without the need for [[formal methods]] training. By strictly retaining the vocabulary of the original requirements, this eases the burden of understanding.
* They have a [[Semantics of programming languages|formal semantics]],<ref name = "colvinHayesNotation" /> they support [[Concurrency (computer science)|concurrency]], they are [[executable]], and they can be [[simulated]], [[Model checking|model checked]], and used to undertake [[failure mode and effects analysis]].<ref name = "automatedFailEffect05" />
* They can be used equally well to model human processes, to analyze contracts,<ref name = "contracts02">Milosevic, Z., Dromey, R.G. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1137692 On Expressing and Monitoring Behavior in Contracts], EDOC 2002, Proceedings, 6th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, Sept. 2002, pp. 3-14.</ref> to represent forensic information, to represent biological systems, and many other applications. In each case, they deliver the same benefits in terms of managing complexity and seeing things as a whole. They can also be used for [[Safety-critical system|safety critical systems]],<ref name = "integratingSafety05" /> [[embedded system]]s,<ref name = "embeddedSys05" />
== Disadvantages ==
Line 203 ⟶ 205:
[[Category:Enterprise modelling]]
[[Category:Modeling languages]]
[[Category:Software engineering]]
| |||