Using workflows to control the experiment execution in modeling and simulation software

To control the computation of an experiment means at least to deal with the generation of parameter combinations of interest (at best using experiment design solutions) and to execute, in case of stochastic simulations, the required replications using the hardware available. Although the process to be supported by modeling and simulation (M&S) software is often constrained to loading the model and instantiating it using a given parameter configuration and executing it by taking into account the simulation parameters, needs might arise to adapt and extend the code controlling the execution, i. e., incorporating feedback loops from validation or analysis steps into the execution scheme during runtime, having user interaction or simply adding further steps to the execution scheme such as further data processing. Additional features, like supporting diverse hardware setups, documentation or security, may imply further changes to the code. A workflow-based execution abstracts from concrete implementations and hard-coded execution patterns, as it provides a declarative description of this process, which means that anyone can set up own experimentation workflows (by using smaller predefined workflows and non-workflow-based components). Herein we present a workflow driven realization of an experimentation layer, which supports the same features as the hard-coded alternative and we discuss the pros, cons, and performance of the workflow-based approach.

[1]  Leonard Steinborn International Organization for Standardization ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems — Requirements , 2004 .

[2]  Stefan Leye,et al.  Flexible experimentation in the modeling and simulation framework JAMES II - implications for computational systems biology , 2010, Briefings Bioinform..

[3]  Stefan Leye,et al.  Enhancing the Scalability of Simulations by Embracing Multiple Levels of Parallelization , 2010, 2010 Ninth International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Methods in Verification, and Second International Workshop on High Performance Computational Systems Biology.

[4]  Richard E. Nance,et al.  The Simulation Project Life-Cycle: Models and Realities , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference.

[5]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Taverna: a tool for building and running workflows of services , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  Adelinde M. Uhrmacher,et al.  A flexible and scalable experimentation layer , 2008, 2008 Winter Simulation Conference.

[7]  Yogesh L. Simmhan,et al.  The Trident Scientific Workflow Workbench , 2008, 2008 IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience.

[8]  Zhongshi Wang,et al.  Expanding the V-Modell® XT for verification and validation of modelling and simulation applications , 2008, 2008 Asia Simulation Conference - 7th International Conference on System Simulation and Scientific Computing.

[9]  Wil vanderAalst,et al.  Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems , 2004 .

[10]  Adelinde M. Uhrmacher,et al.  Using workflows in M&S software , 2010, Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference.

[11]  Adelinde M. Uhrmacher,et al.  Plug'n Simulate , 2007, 40th Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS'07).

[12]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow Patterns , 2004, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[13]  Nagiza F. Samatova,et al.  The sorting direct method for stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with varying reaction execution behavior , 2006, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[14]  Stuart H. Kurkowski,et al.  Credible mobile ad hoc network simulation-based studies , 2006 .

[15]  Adelinde M. Uhrmacher,et al.  WORMS- A framework to support workflows in M&S , 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).