I got the problem of the pedestrian library. I would like to use the pedestrian library to simulate the behavior of the vehicle, therefore, I would like to set the comfortable speed of the agent to be, say 70km/h. However, there is an error saying the speed has to be within [0mps, 10mps]. Is there any way to set whatever speed I want?
Thank you,
Jiannan
First why don't you use the road traffic library? But you must have your reasons.
You can't change the maximum speed value, but what you can do, which is not a very elegant solution, but a solution nonetheless, is to change the time scale of your model. There is no direct option for that, so you basically have to create your own clock that runs your way.
So for instance, if you want your car to move at 20mps, you choose 10 mps as the comfortable speed and you have the transformation customTime(time())=0.5*time(), where custom time is your own function.
So every time 1 second passes in the simulation, in your custom clock only 0.5 seconds will pass... You just have to take care of the statistics you are collecting so they fit your time scale.
Also, you will have to change everything according to your clock in your model, because Anylogic will continue showing you things in normal seconds.
Hope that helps :)
What R function should we use if we want to decide the sample size for such a test:
10 ads, we want to use a test to decide which ads has the best click through rate. We are able to count the flow and click throughs.
I don’t think the number of variant experiences makes a difference. In each, you compare a metric to the same metric in control, so in each you’ll have its own significant sample size: the smaller the difference with the control, the larger the sample size.
The point of active debate in recent years is something related: how, at run time, to optimize the traffic split between the experiences so that by the time all the variants are called, the most has gone through your winning experience. Google (Experiments) have devised something they call the Multi-Arm Bandid algorithm for that, but as far as I know it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and probably for a reason.
Good Luck!
I have been working on a virtual stock market game using PHP. The formula that I have been using for deciding the price of a stock is
$price += $ran*0.001*$price + $ratio*0.005*$price
where
$ran = rand(-1*$intensity, 2*$intensity)
$intensity is a number between -5 to 5 depending upon whether the news is good or bad for the company and
$ratio = (1.0*($buy-$sell))/($buy + $sell)
$buy and $sell represent the number of shares bought and sold of a company respectively.
The problem with this formula is that, even if the intensity is negative (even -5) the ratio term is always added to the price which makes the overall term increase. The prices are refreshed every 10 seconds and with the above formula they keep on increasing and never come down. So, can anyone help me out with this formula so that it varies more closely to the actual stock market?
If I understand correctly, you're trying to define an algorithm to determine a logical next price based on the current price, some market activity, and a random input. This is called a Random Walk, and the linked page is quite informative.
In economics, the "random walk hypothesis" is used to model shares prices and other factors. Empirical studies found some deviations from this theoretical model, especially in short term and long term correlations.
It's difficult for us to provide an exact function for you, since the exact behavior you expect of a function like this is inherently application specific. However it is possible to test the behavior and improve on it, by pulling it out into its own method and tweaking it until you see the behavior you want.
I would suggest pulling this behavior you've defined into an SSCCE (or a unit test, but assuming you don't already have a PHP unit test framework set up, an example will do fine) and creating some test cases, then you can tweak your algorithm in a vacuum and find behavior you like.
Here's some boilerplate to get started:
<?php
function nextPrice($price, $intensity, $buy, $sell, $rand) {
// TODO
}
// Can tweak these values between runs, or put them in a loop if you want
$testPrice = 10.0;
$testBuy = 10000;
$testSell = 10000;
for ($i = -5; $i <= 5; $i++) {
// random float, from http://stackoverflow.com/a/14155720/113632
// set to a constant if you want to isolate the randomness and test other variables
$testRand = mt_rand(0, mt_getrandmax() - 1) / mt_getrandmax();
echo "<p>Intensity: $i - Rand: $testRand = ".
nextPrice($testPrice, $i, $testBuy, $testSell, $testRand)."</p>";
}
?>
Some additional thoughts:
Your $ran definition is definitely flawed, if $intensity is -5 you're executing $ran = rand(5, -10); which generates a warning and doesn't return the value you want. This is likely the root of your issue, as any negative $intensity will essentially set $ran to zero.
Furthermore your $ran definition is biased towards positive numbers, meaning the price is - rather quickly - going to rise even if there's bad news. I'd suggest ensuring your random value is equally likely to lower the stock as raise it, and if you intend for the stock to rise in value over time regardless (which seems like a bad idea to me) set a separate $longTermGrowthFactor that always increases the stock by that factor, separately from the randomness.
Turn on warning reporting in PHP - since you presumably hadn't seen the warnings related to your rand() call, you likely have warnings and other error types turned off, which quite likely means there are other errors hidden in your code you aren't aware of, and without the reporting they're going to be hard to spot.
Use mt_rand() instead of rand(), the latter is deprecated, and mt_rand() is a drop-in replacement providing better randomness.
I have code that pics a random number from 0 to 1. I am seeing that the number 1 is coming up far more times then the number 0 then I would think to be statistically possible.
This is my code:
int shipNumber = arc4random() % 2;
Should this code work? Am I just going crazy?
That code should work.
What I suspect you're seeing is truly random (or, at least, sufficiently random) and your brain is trying to find patterns. (Everybody's brain tries to find patterns everywhere. That's how you're reading this. The issue is there are no patterns in randomness [that being pretty much the definition] for your brain to latch on to, so it invents some.)
If you really want to check your output for randomness, you'll need to do a statistical analysis of some kind or other.
You might be seeing modulo bias.
In an online manager game (like Hattrick), I want to simulate matches between two teams.
A team consists of 11 players. Every player has a strength value between 1 and 100. I take these strength values of the defensive players for each team and calculate the average. That's the defensive quality of a team. Then I take the strengths of the offensive players and I get the offensive quality.
For each attack, I do the following:
$offFactor = ($attackerTeam_offensive-$defenderTeam_defensive)/max($attackerTeam_offensive, $defenderTeam_defensive);
$defFactor = ($defenderTeam_defensive-$attackerTeam_offensive)/max($defenderTeam_defensive, $attackerTeam_offensive);
At the moment, I don't know why I divide it by the higher one of both values. But this formula should give you a factor for the quality of offense and defense which is needed later.
Then I have nested conditional statements for each event which could happen. E.g.: Does the attacking team get a scoring chance?
if ((mt_rand((-10+$offAdditionalFactor-$defAdditionalFactor), 10)/10)+$offFactor >= 0)
{ ... // the attack succeeds
These additional factors could be tactical values for example.
Do you think this is a good way of calculating a game? My users say that they aren't satisfied with the quality of the simulations. How can I improve them? Do you have different approaches which could give better results? Or do you think that my approach is good and I only need to adjust the values in the conditional statements and experiment a bit?
I hope you can help me. Thanks in advance!
Here is a way I would do it.
Offensive/Defensive Quality
First lets work out the average strength of the entire team:
Team.Strength = SUM(Players.Strength) / 11
Now we want to split out side in two, and work out the average for our defensive players, and our offensive players.]
Defense.Strength = SUM(Defensive_Players.Strength)/Defensive_Players.Count
Offense.Strength = SUM(Offense_Players.Strength)/Offense_Players.Count
Now, we have three values. The first, out Team average, is going to be used to calculate our odds of winning. The other two, are going to calculate our odds of defending and our odds of scoring.
A team with a high offensive average is going to have more chances, a team with a high defense is going to have more chance at saving.
Now if we have to teams, lets call them A and B.
Team A, have an average of 80, An offensive score of 85 and a defensive score of 60.
Team B, have an average of 70, An offensive score of 50 and a defensive score of 80.
Now, based on the average. Team A, should have a better chance at winning. But by how much?
Scoring and Saving
Lets work out how many times goals Team A should score:
A.Goals = (A.Offensive / B.Defensive) + RAND()
= (85/80) + 0.8;
= 1.666
I have assumed the random value adds anything between -1 and +1, although you can adjust this.
As we can see, the formula indicates team A should score 1.6 goals. we can either round this up/down. Or give team A 1, and calculate if the other one is allowed (random chance).
Now for Team B
B.Goals = (B.Offensive / A.Defensive) + RAND()
= (50/60) + 0.2;
= 1.03
So we have A scoring 1 and B scoring 1. But remember, we want to weight this in A's favour, because, overall, they are the better team.
So what is the chance A will win?
Chance A Will Win = (A.Average / B.Average)
= 80 / 70
= 1.14
So we can see the odds are 14% (.14) in favor of A winning the match. We can use this value to see if there is any change in the final score:
if Rand() <= 0.14 then Final Score = A 2 - 1 B Otherwise A 1 - 1 B
If our random number was 0.8, then the match is a draw.
Rounding Up and Further Thoughts
You will definitely want to play around with the values. Remember, game mechanics are very hard to get right. Talk to your players, ask them why they are dissatisfied. Are there teams always losing? Are the simulations always stagnant? etc.
The above outline is deeply affected by the randomness of the selection. You will want to normalise it so the chances of a team scoring an extra 5 goals is very very rare. But a little randomness is a great way to add some variety to the game.
There are ways to edit this method as well. For example instead of the number of goals, you could use the Goal figure as the number of scoring chances, and then have another function that worked out the number of goals based on other factors (i.e. choose a random striker, and use that players individual stats, and the goalies, to work out if there is a goal)
I hope this helps.
The most basic tactical decision in football is picking formation, which is a set of three numbers which assigns the 10 outfield players to defence, midfield and attack, respectively, e.g. 4/4/2.
If you use average player strength, you don't merely lose that tactic, you have it going backwards: the strongest defence is one with a single very good player, giving him any help will make it more likely the other team score. If you have one player with a rating of 10, the average is 10. Add another with rating 8, and the average drops (to 9). But assigning more people to defence should make it stronger, not weaker.
So first thing, you want to make everything be based on the total, not the average. The ratio between the totals is a good scale-independent way of determining which teams is stronger and by how much. Ratios tend to be better than differences, because they work in a predictable way with teams of any range of strengths. You can set up a combat results table that says how many goals are scored (per game, per half, per move, or whatever).
The next tactical choice is whether it is better to have one exceptional player, or several good ones. You can make that matter that by setting up scenarios that represent things that happen in game, e.g. a 1 on 1, a corner, or a long ball. The players involved in a scenario are first randomly chosen, then the result of the scenario is rolled for. One result can be that another scenario starts (midfield pass leads to cross leads to header chance).
The final step, which would bring you pretty much up to the level of actual football manager games, is to give players more than one type of strength rating, e.g., heading, passing, shooting, and so on. Then you use the strength rating appropriate to the scenario they are in.
The division in your example is probably a bad idea, because it changes the scale of the output variable depending on which side is better. Generally when comparing two quantities you either want interval data (subtract one from the other) or ratio data (divide one by the other) but not both.
A better approach in this case would be to simply divide the offensive score by the defensive score. If both are equal, the result will be 1. If the attacker is better than the defender, it will be greater than 1, and if the defender is stronger, it will be less than one. These are easy numbers to work with.
Also, instead of averaging the whole team, average parts of the team depending on the formations or tactics used. This will allow teams to choose to play offensively or defensively and see the pros and cons of this.
And write yourself some better random number generation functions. One that returns floating point values between -1 and 1 and one that works from 0 to 1, for starters. Use these in your calculations and you can avoid all those confusing 10s everywhere!
You might also want to ask the users what about the simulation they don't like. It's possible that, rather than seeing the final outcome of the game, they want to know how many times their team had an opportunity to attack but the defense regained control. So instead of
"Your team wins 2-1"
They want to see match highlights:
"Your team wins 2-1:
- scored at minute 15,
- other team took control and went for tried for a goal at minute 30,
but the shoot was intercepted,
- we took control again and $PLAYER1 scored a beautiful goal!
... etc
You can use something like what Jamie suggests for a starting point, choose the times at random, and maybe pick who scored the goal based on a weighted sampling of the offensive players (i.e. a player with a higher score gets a higher chance of being the one who scored). You can have fun and add random low-probability events like a red card on a player, someone injuring themselves, streakers across the field...
The average should be the number of players... using the max means if you have 3 player teams:
[4 4 4]
[7 4 1]
The second one would be considered weaker. Is that what you want? I think you would rather do something like:
(Total Scores / Total Players) + (Max Score / Total Players), so in the above example it would make the second team slightly better.
I guess it depends on how you feel the teams should be balanced.