I did a simulation of a dynamic model in Dymola, after the simulation of 200000s is finished, it seems the model hasn't reached a steady state. I am guessing this is caused by the numerical calculation error.
My question is :
How could reach a real steady state when doing dynamic simulation?
Difficult to judge from the single screenshot, but still my thoughts about this:
An exponential decay - which describes many behaviors in a technical systems - will (mathematically) take infinite time to reach its final value. Usually it is assumed, that after five time constants have passed, the process is complete. This corresponds to the value having reached 99.3% of its final value (actually the delta between start and final value). So if you look close enough, you will always find the value changing until you reach so small gradients that they are lost in the numerics.
I do think that the above process is not finished rather than seeing numerical issues here. But again, without a use-case and the rest of the trajectory this is difficult to judge. To shed some more light on this, I would recommend to estimate the time constant of the process (e.g. here). Then it should be possible to judge how "many time-constants have passed" at 2e5 seconds.
BTW: There is a nice website describing the issue for measurements.
Related
I would like to predict the switching behavior of time-dependent signals. Currently the signal has 3 states (1, 2, 3), but it could be that this will change in the future. For the moment, however, it is absolutely okay to assume three states.
I can make the following assumptions about these states (see picture):
the signals repeat periodically, possibly with variations concerning the time of day.
the duration of state 2 is always constant and relatively short for all signals.
the duration of states 1 and 3 are also constant, but vary for the different signals.
the switching sequence is always the same: 1 --> 2 --> 3 --> 2 --> 1 --> [...]
there is a constant but unknown time reference between the different signals.
There is no constant time reference between my observations for the different signals. They are simply measured one after the other, but always at different times.
I am able to rebuild my model periodically after i obtained more samples.
I have the following problems:
I can only observe one signal at a time.
I can only observe the signals at different times.
I cannot trigger my measurement with the state transition. That means, when I measure, I am always "in the middle" of a state. Therefore I don't know when this state has started and also not exactly when this state will end.
I cannot observe a certain signal for a long duration. So, i am not able to observe a complete period.
My samples (observations) are widespread in time.
I would like to get a prediction either for the state change or the current state for the current time. It is likely to happen that i will never have measured my signals for that requested time.
So far I have tested the TimeSeriesPredictor from the ML.NET Toolbox, as it seemed suitable to me. However, in my opinion, this algorithm requires that you always pass only the data of one signal. This means that assumption 5 is not included in the prediction, which is probably suboptimal. Also, in this case I had problems with the prediction not changing, which should actually happen time-dependently when I query multiple predictions. This behavior led me to believe that only the order of the values entered the model, but not the associated timestamp. If I have understood everything correctly, then exactly this timestamp is my most important "feature"...
So far, i did not do any tests on Regression-based approaches, e.g. FastTree, since my data is not linear, but keeps changing states. Maybe this assumption is not valid and regression-based methods could also be suitable?
I also don't know if a multiclassifier is required, because I had understood that the TimeSeriesPredictor would also be suitable for this, since it works with the single data type. Whether the prediction is 1.3 or exactly 1.0 would be fine for me.
To sum it up:
I am looking for a algorithm which is able to recognize the switching patterns based on lose and widespread samples. It would be okay to define boundaries, e.g. state duration 3 of signal 1 will never last longer than 30s or state duration 1 of signal 3 will never last longer 60s.
Then, after the algorithm has obtained an approximate model of the switching behaviour, i would like to request a prediction of a certain signal state for a certain time.
Which methods can I use to get the best prediction, preferably using the ML.NET toolbox or based on matlab?
Not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but if detecting spikes and changes using signals is what you're looking for, check out the anomaly detection algorithms in ML.NET. Here are two tutorials that show how to use them.
Detect anomalies in product sales
Spike detection
Change point detection
Detect anomalies in time series
Detect anomaly period
Detect anomaly
One way to approach this would be to first determine the periodicity of each of the signals independently. This could be done by looking at the frequency distribution of time differences between measurements of state 2 only and separately for each signal.
This will give a multinomial distribution. The shortest time difference will be the duration of the switching event (after discarding time differences less than the max duration of state 2). The second shortest peak will be the duration between the end of one switching event and the start of the next.
When you have the 3 calculations of periodicity you can simply calculate the difference between each of them. Given you have the timestamps of the measurements of state 2 for each signal you should be able to calculate the time of switching for all other signals.
I run an infectious disease spread model similar to "VIRUS" model in the model library changing the "infectiousness".
I did 20 runs each for infectiousness values 98% , 95% , 93% and the Maximum infected count was 74.05 , 73 ,78.9 respectively. (peak was at tick 38 for all 3 infectiousness values)
[I took the average of the infected count for each tick and took the maximum of these averages as the "maximum infected".]
I was expecting the maximum infected count to decrease when the infectiousness is reduced, but it didn't. As per what I understood this happens, because I considered the average values of each simulation run. (It is like I am considering a new simulation run with average infected count for each tick ).
I want to say that, I am considering all 20 simulation runs. Is there a way to do that other than the way I used the average?
In the Models Library Virus model with default parameter settings at other values, and those high infectiousness values, what I see when I run the model is a periodic variation in the numbers three classes of person. Look at the plot in the lower left corner, and you'll see this. What is happening, I believe, is this:
When there are many healthy, non-immune people, that means that there are many people who can get infected, so the number of infected people goes up, and the number of healthy people goes down.
Soon after that, the number of sick, infectious people goes down, because they either die or become immune.
Since there are now more immune people, and fewer infectious people, the number of non-immune healthy grows; they are reproducing. (See "How it works" in the Info tab.) But now we have returned to the situation in step 1, ... so the cycle continues.
If your model is sufficiently similar to the Models Library Virus model, I'd bet that this is part of what's happening. If you don't have a plot window like the Virus model, I recommend adding it.
Also, you didn't say how many ticks you are running the model for. If you run it for a short number of ticks, you won't notice the periodic behavior, but that doesn't mean it hasn't begun.
What this all means that increasing infectiousness wouldn't necessarily increase the maximum number infected: a faster rate of infection means that the number of individuals who can infected drops faster. I'm not sure that the maximum number infected over the whole run is an interesting number, with this model and a high infectiousness value. It depends what you are trying to understand.
One of the great things about NetLogo and some other ABM systems is that you can watch the system evolve over time, using various tools such as plots, monitors, etc. as well as just looking at the agents move around or change states over time. This can help you understand what is going on in a way that a single number like an average won't. Then you can use this insight to figure out a more informative way of measuring what is happening.
Another model where you can see a similar kind of periodic pattern is Wolf-Sheep Predation. I recommend looking at that. It may be easier to understand the pattern. (If you are interested in mathematical models of this kind of phenomenon, look up Lotka-Volterra models.)
(Real virus transmission can be more complicated, because a person (or other animal) is a kind of big "island" where viruses can reproduce quickly. If they reproduce too quickly, this can kill the host, and prevent further transmission of the virus. Sometimes a virus that reproduces more slowly can harm more people, because there is time for them to infect others. This blog post by Elliott Sober gives a relatively simple mathematical introduction to some of the issues involved, but his simple mathematical models don't take into account all of the complications involved in real virus transmission.)
EDIT: You added a comment Lawan, saying that you are interested in modeling COVID-19 transmission. This paper, Variation and multilevel selection of SARS‐CoV‐2 by Blackstone, Blackstone, and Berg, suggests that some of the dynamics that I mentioned in the preceding remarks might be characteristic of COVID-19 transmission. That paper is about six months old now, and it offered some speculations based on limited information. There's probably more known now, but this might suggest avenues for further investigation.
If you're interested, you might also consider asking general questions about virus transmission on the Biology Stackexchange site.
I am hoping somebody here will be able to help me out with my small issue with one of the Simulink/Matlab code. It is quite similar to the problem that I’ve discussed earlier, but a little bit more complicated and now it is more a Simulink issue, rather than a Matlab one.
So I have a turbine which speed is controlled by the gate’s opening, hence the control voltage. By controlling the gate opening I am accelerating the turbine and at some point in time, I need to introduce a saturation effect (since I am testing the code now, it will be done an external signal). This effect won’t change the control voltage, but it affects other components of the system, hence at the same control voltage, the turbine’s speed will go up. But at the same time, I need to keep the speed at the same value as it was before the saturation effect (let’s say it was 320 rpm). To do so I need to decrease the control voltage and should keep doing it until I reach the speed as it was before. There is no need to do it instantly (this approach will be later introduced in hardware), but it will be a nice thing to check the algorithm in these synthetic tests.
In terms of the model, I was planning to use a while loop with the speed requirement “if speed > 320” again, now just to simplify things. To decrease the control voltage I was planning to subtract from the original 50 (% opening) - 0.25 (u2) at first and after that increasing this value by 0.25 until I decrease the speed below 320. I can’t know the exact opening when this requirement will be satisfied, hence I need some kind of algorithm to “track” this voltage.
So it should be something like this:
u2 = 0;
While speed > 320
u2 = u2+0.25
End
u2 is initially zero since we have a predefined initial control voltage. And obviously, when we reach the motor’s speed below 320, I need to keep the latest value of the u2 (and control voltage).
Overall, it is a small code and should be done in Simulink (don’t want to introduce any other Fcn function into the model). I’ve never used while and if blocks in Simulink, but so far I came up with this system. It’s a simplified version of my model, but the control principle is the same.
We are getting the motor speed of 350, compared with 320 (the speed before “saturation), and if our speed after saturation is higher, we need to reduce the control voltage. To trigger the while loop block I’ve decided to use a simple switch. The while block meanwhile is:
Definitely not the best implementation but I was trying a lot of different combinations and without any real success. I am always getting the same error:
Was trying to use a step signal instead of the constant “7” – to model acceleration of the motor, and was getting the same error at the moment of acceleration above 320 threshold. So looks like the approach is almost right but mathematically it fails to find the most suitable solution. I’ve tried to implement a transport delay in the memory part of the while subsystem but was getting errors during compilation all the time.
Are there any obvious (and not so) mistakes? Or maybe from the beginning, I should have chosen another approach… I really hope that somebody will be able to help. Thank you in advance and have a great day.
I do not think that you have used While block correctly.
This is what I have done, I used a "Matlab function" block instead of "While" block as follows,
The function in Matlab function is
function u2=fcn(speed,u2d)
if speed>320
u2=u2d+0.25;
else
u2=u2d;
end
And the results I have got, Scope 1
Scope
Edit
As you prefer a function free model, the following may do the same.
Some general Modelica advice?
We've built a model with ~2000 equations and three vectors of input from measured data. Using OpenModelica, attempts at simulation have begun to hang in the translation stage (which runs for hours where it used to take less than a minute) and now I regularly "lose connection to omc.exe." Is there perhaps something cumulative occurring that's degrading translation/compilation performance?
In general, are there any good rules of thumb for keeping simulations lighter and faster? I realize that, depending on the couplings, additional equations could be exponentially increasing the size of the resulting system of equations - could this be a problem?
Thanks for your thoughts!
It shouldn't take that long. Seems like a bug.
You can report this bug here:
https://trac.openmodelica.org/OpenModelica (New Ticket).
If your model is public you can post it there, if not you can contact the OpenModelica team privately.
I did some cleaning in the code; and got the part that repeats 12x (the module) down to ~180 equations; in the process I reduced the size of my input vectors (and also a 2D look-up table the module refers to) by quite a bit - they're both down to a few hundred values. It's working now--simulations run in reasonable time, a few minutes each.
Since all these tables were defined within Modelica functions (as you pointed out, Mr. Tiller) perhaps shrinking them helped to improve the performance. I had assumed that all that data just got spread out in a memory array, without going through any real processing, but maybe that's not the case...time to know more about what's going on under the hood in this environment (as always).
Thanks for the help!
I am new with signal processing, i have following signals which i've got after some pre-processing on original signals.
You can see some of them has some similarities with others and some doesn't. but the problem is They have various range(in this example from 1000 to 3000).
Question
How can i analysis their properties scale-free(what i mean from properties is statistical properties of signals or whatever)??
Note that i don't want to cross-comparing the signals, i just want independent signals signatures which i can run some process on them sometime later.
Anything would help.
If you want to make a filter that separates signals that follow this pattern from signals that don't, well, there's tons of things you could do!
Just think practically. As a first shot at it, you could do something like this (in this order):
Check if the signals are all-positive
Check if the first element is close in value to the last element
Check if the maximum lies "in the middle" somewhere
Check if the first value is small, then the signal grows, then shrinks again
Check if the growth rates are gradual. You could for example analyze their derivatives (after smoothing):
a. derivative should be all-positive for a while, then all-negative.
b. derivative should be smooth (no jumps greater than some tolerance)
Without additional knowledge about the signal's nature/origin, it's going to be hard to come up with more meaningful metrics than these...