<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Mangal;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 2;}
@font-face
{font-family:Mangal;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 2;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b>AVM PI Meeting - Nashville - Update 5/10</b> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>NOTE<br><br>The DARPA Deputy Director, Ken Gabriel, will participate in at least the first day of the PI meeting (and subsequently plans attend all of the September meeting in Berkeley). Please put your best foot forward. I will also share all of the META performers' "key insight" charts with him, so make them good please.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>AGENDA <br><br>You will not see an agenda until very shortly before the meeting. This is due to the fact that there remains significant uncertainty around which of the iFAB and vehicleforge contracts will or will not be awarded in time for the PI meeting. However, for general planning purposes you can assume an 0800 start (0730 registration/setup) on Monday, May 23 and a 1400 or earlier finish on Wednesday, May 25. You should also expect you or your co-PIs to be giving a status brief, showing a demo, or participating in a workshop discussion each of the three days. Briefs for META performers will be in the 15-30 minute range and include the "key insight" charts and status update. Briefs for the iFAB performers will be ~45 minutes and be a substantive deep-dive into the technical objectives of their proposed effort.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>WORKSHOPS <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There will be three workshops at this PI meeting. Workshops are smaller-group focused discussions around a particular topic. In order to keep them small, we will explicitly invite specific teams and/or individuals to attend these once we get the attendee list. Others will be welcome to drop by on a space available basis, though we have intentionally picked a cozy meeting space for these. The three workshops will focus on: (1) formal semantics, (2) probabilistic certificates of correctness, and (3) iFAB. In general, the invited attendees for (1) will be the language teams (plus a few folks), for (2) will be the META verification teams, and for (3) will be all the iFAB performers. The workshops will not be concurrent, so some folks will undoubtedly need to attend more than one. The homework assignments for each workshop are to prepare a 15-20 minute presentation or short whitepaper on the following topics: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(1) Formal Semantics: Prepare and show the formal semantics of a simple system of your choice in each of the following domains: mechanical, electrical, and digital/software. It would be neat if the systems were analogous across the domains. An example that I cited earlier would be a PID controller comprised of level/spring/mass, capacitor/resistor/amp, and a microcontroller/software. Show the semantics of each component and how they would be integrated or composed into the PID controller. Then show that the PID controller abstracted is equivalent across each implementation. You may choose other examples than a PID controller, but the goal of the exercise is to demonstrate your approach to semantics across each of the three domains and to show how a system would be expressed at two different levels of abstraction. Also please comment and be prepared to discuss your view of the minimal standard of formal semantics in C2M2L models that META should require. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(2) Probabilistic Certificates of Correctness: How do you currently propagate and aggregate component/sub-system uncertainties into an overall system-level PCC? What is or should the distinction be for purposes of computing a PCC between component model uncertainty and component failure modes? How do you currently determine the probabilities/failure models for components (that is where do you get the data?) How would you determine the sensitivity/vulnerability of your approach to the correctness/accuracy of the component-level model data? Provide some metrics on the scalability of your current algorithms and tools to a system with ~100,000 components (evenly split between mechanical/structural, electrical, electronic, and software) and a description of how you arrived at these estimates. Please select some relevant examples in the context of which to answer these questions. The goal of this exercise is to reach a common understanding of the key issues and concerns having to do with computing, manipulating, and aggregating or composing lower-level or component PCCs into system level PCCs, to help understand how requirement for component-level PCCs should be set, and to explore the scalability of the various verification approaches. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(3) iFAB: The overarching purpose of this workshop is to bring together all the iFAB performers together for the first time. The key questions to be addressed is what needs to happen in 6-12 months of iFAB such that DARPA can close on a preliminary and final foundry design to support FANG? Are all the right competencies and capabilities to help answer that question represented in the room? If not, what is missing? Subsidiary questions to be explored, include: What should be the content of a foundry process/machine/component model? What are the key challenges in preserving design integrity through the build process? What are viable architectural options for a foundry given the need to generate complete instructions and verify build integrity? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ATTENDEES <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We need to know who from your team will attend the PI meeting in person and who will participate virtually through Adobe Connect. Please remember that each team is limited to four in-person and four virtual attendees, and you are encouraged to further minimize the number of in-person attendees to the PIs/co-PIs only. For each team (one e-mail per team please), we need the name, affiliation, e-mail address, and an indication if they are an in-person or virtual attendee e-mailed to Matt Kaim (<a href="mailto:matthew.kaim.ctr@darpa.mil">matthew.kaim.ctr@darpa.mil</a>) no later than noon EST on Friday, May 13. Please don't miss this deadline as we have to place catering orders, print badges, and provide Adobe Connect registration. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>BIOS <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As the number of folks at PI meetings grows, we'd like to make a picture/bio book to hand out to everyone. Separately from your attendance information for the meeting, please e-mail Matt Kaim (<a href="mailto:matthew.kaim.ctr@darpa.mil">matthew.kaim.ctr@darpa.mil</a>) a bio of 150 or fewer words and a small portrait photo in some reasonable image format for the PI and any co-PIs on your team. The definition of a PI for this purpose is not just any attendee at a PI meeting (although I'd prefer, for future attendance purposes, that these be congruent!). The PI is the technical leader of your team. In some cases this responsibility is shared with one or more co-PIs who lead teams at subcontractor/teammate organizations. In that case, you may include them also if they are a key intellectual contributor to your work and to the program. There is no harm in being over-inclusive in your submission, but I reserve the right to edit without implying offense to any. It would be great if we could get these before the end of the weekend (Sunday, May 15) so that we can compile, edit, and go to print and have these ready for you in Nashville. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>CHART & CODE UPLOADS <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>META performers should upload a draft version of your presentation and a code drop associated with your demo to the respective Sharepoint folders no later than the end of the day on Wednesday, May 18. We *will* hunt you down on Thursday morning if these are not present on Sharepoint, as pre-reads are an essential courtesy to your colleagues and the government team. You may, of course, supply updated version at the PI meeting. iFAB performers should supply your briefing charts as soon as practical after contract award. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>CONSUMABLES <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Coffee, drinks, lunch, and snacks will be catered at a cost of $20/person/day. There will also be a Birds of a Feather-type session on Monday or Tuesday afternoon that will include wine to lubricate the discussion. We ask for a contribution of $10/person. It is easiest if you pay the full amount in cash upon arrival. Separate receipts will be provided. (We are not yet sure if lunch will need to be served on the third day or if we will break early enough.) <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>