A framework for scalable analysis and design of system-wide graceful degradation in distributed embedded systems
Open accessAbstract
We present a framework that will enable scalable analysis and design of graceful degradation in distributed embedded systems. We define graceful degradation in terms of utility. A system that gracefully degrades suffers a proportional loss of system utility as individual software and hardware components fail. However, explicitly designing a system to gracefully degrade; i.e. handle all possible combinations of component failures, becomes impractical for systems with more than a few components. We avoid this exponential complexity of component combinations by exploiting the structure of the system architecture to partition components into subsystems. We view each subsystem as a configuration of components that changes when components are removed or added. Thus, a subsystem's utility changes when components fail or are repaired. We then view the system as a composition of subsystems that each contribute to overall system utility. We demonstrate the scalability of our framework by applying it to an example automobile navigation system. Using this framework, we improve the system dependability by identifying architectural properties that enhance a system's ability to gracefully degrade.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
We identified 3 main components from qualitative feedback that may facilitate usability of chatbots for self-management: interaction flexibility, graceful degradation, and a medical professional persona.
“We identified 3 main components from qualitative feedback that may facilitate usability of chatbots for selfmanagement: interaction flexibility, graceful degradation (ie, the ability of the system to tolerate failures), 58 and a medical professional persona.”
From A chatbot for hypertension self-management support: user-centered design, development, and usability testing (2023) · cites this paper as [58]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Griffin, A. C., Khairat, S., Bailey, S. C., & Chung, A. E. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad073 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shelton, C. P., Koopman, P., & Nace, W.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Koopman, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems, 2003. (WORDS 2003).
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2003-10-31
- Pages
- 156-163
- OpenAlex
- W2153726799
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.39
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems (WORDS) (publishedVersion)
- KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- KiltHub Repository
- Funders
- Carnegie Mellon University
- Ames Research Center
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Systems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
- Keywords
- graceful degradation, distributed embedded systems, system utility, component failure, subsystem partitioning, system dependability, scalability, fault tolerance, system architecture design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review