TOP-DOWN VS BOTTOM-UP METHODOLOGIES FOR ADAS SYSTEM DESIGN
Abstract
Selection of the principal design methodology has a significant impact on final product
quality, including its evolvability and scalability. The article discusses the features of traditional
bottom-up and top-down design methodologies in the context of ADAS (driver assistance and automated
driving systems). Necessity of the combined design methodology is shown due to unacceptability
of “pure” methodologies for design of this kind of systems. For this purpose, the features
and limitations of the top-down approach are considered: commitment to maximum compliance
of the developed system with its requirements; methodological rigor of the approach; difficulty
of system testing in the process of the development; sensitivity to changes in requirements.
The features and limitations of the bottom-up approach are considered: possibility of iterative
development with obtaining intermediate results; possibility of using standard components; scalability
and flexibility of the developed system; possibility of discrepancy of functions of subsystems
to requirements, which may appear only at later stages of development; possible inconsistency in
development of separate subsystems and elements. The features and factors of ADAS system development
are considered: increased requirements for reliability and safety of the system; heterogeneity
of used components. Two stages of ADAS-systems development are distinguished: the
stage of intensive development and the stage of extensive evolution. The applicability of one or
another methodology to various aspects of ADAS system development and evolution (such as:
requirements definition; compositional morphism; scalability and extensibility; stability and sustainability;
cost and development time; development capability) is considered. A comparison of themethodologies concludes that there are aspects of technical system design and development in
which there is a significant advantage of one or the other of the methodologies. Only the bottomup
approach can ensure the proper evolution of the system. However, for complex systems, it is
critical to define the initial requirements for the system, which can only be achieved using the topdown
methodology.
References
7th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, 2004, [S.l.]: IEEE,
2004, pp. 131-136.
2. Li L., Wen D., Zheng N., Shen L. Cognitive Cars: A New Frontier for ADAS Research, IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2012, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 395-407. Doi:
10.1109/TITS.2011.2159493.
3. Ziebinski A, Cupek R, Grzechca D, Chruszczyk L. Review of advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computational Methods in Sciences
and Engineering 2017 (ICCMSE-2017). AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1906, [S.l.]:
[AIP], 2017, Art. no. 120002, 4 p. Doi: 10.1063/1.5012394.
4. Jumaa B.A., Abdulhassan A.M., Abdulhassan A.M. Advanced Driver Assistance System
(ADAS): A Review of Systems and Technologies, International Journal of Advanced Research
in Computer Engineering & Technology, 2019, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 231-234.
5. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A., Damm W., Passerone R. Taming Dr. Frankenstein: Contract-based
design for cyber-physical systems, European journal of control, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 217-238.
6. Crespi V., Galstyan A., Lerman K. Top-down vs bottom-up methodologies in multi-agent system
design, Autonomous Robots, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 303-313.
7. Wan-Kadir W.M.N., Loucopoulos P. Relating evolving business rules to software design,
Journal of Systems architecture, 2004, Vol. 50, No. 7, pp. 367-382.
8. Borches P.D., Bonnema G.M. Coping with System Evolution‐Experiences in Reverse Architecting
as a Means to Ease the Evolution of Complex Systems, INCOSE International Symposium,
2009, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 955-969.
9. Christian J., Olds J. A quantitative methodology for identifying evolvable space systems, 1st
Space Exploration Conference: Continuing the Voyage of Discovery. [S.l.]: [s.n], 2005,
pp. 2543.
10. Bernhart W., Winterhoff M. Autonomous Driving: Disruptive Innovation that Promises to
Change the Automotive Industry as We Know It, Energy Consumption and Autonomous Driving.
Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 3-10.
11. Jo K. et al. Development of autonomous car – Part I: Distributed system architecture and development
process, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2014, Vol. 61, No. 12,
pp. 7131-7140.
12. Heinecke H. Automotive system design-challenges and potential, Proceedings of the conference
on Design, Automation and Test in Europe-Volume 1. [S.l.]: IEEE Computer Society,
2005, pp. 656-657.
13. Benvenuti L. et al. Contract-based design for computation and verification of a closed-loop
hybrid system, International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Berlin:
Springer, 2008, pp. 58-71.
14. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A. Quo vadis, SLD? Reasoning about the trends and challenges of
system level design, Proceedings of the IEEE, 2007, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 467-506.
15. Thakurdesai H.M., Aghav J.V. Autonomous cars: technical challenges and a solution to blind
spot, Advances in Computational Intelligence and Communication Technology. Proceedings of
CICT 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 1086. Singapore: Springer,
2021, pp. 533-547. Doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-1275-9_44.
16. Ziebinski A., Cupek R., Erdogan H., Waechter S. A Survey of ADAS Technologies for the
Future Perspective of Sensor Fusion, Computational Collective Intelligence. ICCCI 2016. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9876. Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 135-146. Doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-45246-3_13.
17. Boehm B.W. Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications, IEEE
software, 1984, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 75.
18. Arnaut B.M., Ferrari D.B., e Souza M.L.O. A requirements engineering and management process
in concept phase of complex systems, 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Systems
Engineering (ISSE). [S.l.]: IEEE, 2016, pp. 1-6.
19. Sztipanovits J. et al. Toward a science of cyber–physical system integration, Proceedings of
the IEEE, 2012, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 29-44.
20. Rowe D., Leaney J., Lowe D. Defining systems evolvability-a taxonomy of change, Change,
1994, Vol. 94, pp. 541-545.
21. Watson J.D. et al. Optimization of excess system capability for increased evolvability, Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2016, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 1277-1294.
