I am trying to build a network simulation (aloha like) where n nodes decide at any instant whether they have to send or not according to an exponential distribution (exponentially distributed arrival times).
What I have done so far is: I set a master clock in a for loop which ticks and any node will start sending at this instant (tick) only if a sample I draw from a uniform [0,1] for this instant is greater than 0.99999; i.e. at any time instant a node has 0.00001 probability of sending (very close to zero as the exponential distribution requires).
Can these arrival times be considered exponentially distributed at each node and if yes with what parameter?
What you're doing is called a time-step simulation, and can be terribly inefficient. Each tick in your master clock for loop represents a delta-t increment in time, and in each tick you have a laundry list of "did this happen?" possible updates. The larger the time ticks are, the lower the resolution of your model will be. Small time ticks will give better resolution, but really bog down the execution.
To answer your direct questions, you're actually generating a geometric distribution. That will provide a discrete time approximation to the exponential distribution. The expected value of a geometric (in terms of number of ticks) is 1/p, while the expected value of an exponential with rate lambda is 1/lambda, so effectively p corresponds to the exponential's rate per whatever unit of time a tick corresponds to. For instance, with your stated value p = 0.00001, if a tick is a millisecond then you're approximating an exponential with a rate of 1 occurrence per 100 seconds, or a mean of 100 seconds between occurrences.
You'd probably do much better to adopt a discrete-event modeling viewpoint. If the time between network sends follows the exponential distribution, once a send event occurs you can schedule when the next one will occur. You maintain a priority queue of pending events, and after handling the logic of the current event you poll the priority queue to see what happens next. Pull the event notice off the queue, update the simulation clock to the time of that event, and dispatch control to a method/function corresponding to the state update logic of that event. Since nothing happens between events, you can skip over large swatches of time. That makes the discrete-event paradigm much more efficient than the time step approach unless the model state needs updating in pretty much every time step. If you want more information about how to implement such models, check out this tutorial paper.
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.
My question is:
Is there a simple an proper way to create arrivals for multiple deliverylocations with the same poisson rate without using a source block for every delivery location?
So an example to make it perhaps a bit more understandable:
I've 30 delivery location nodes (node1, node2, node3, node4 etc). For all those 30 delivery location there should be something transported to those nodes with the same poission arrival rate for simplicity say 1 and they all have different intermediate points where they have to pass (so say delivery location node1, first need to go to intermediate point2 and than to location node 1, see figure for example of database values).
Now ofcourse I can create 30 source blocks with this arrival rate and the intermediate points as parameters of the agent created in that source, but this is kind of time intensive, so is there a quick solution to model this quickly?
Since it happens randomly, arrivals according to database can not be used, since there is not a specified time of arrival it just happens randomly based on a poisson rate.
I'm quite a beginner in Anylogic, so maybe my question is moronic.
What I'm trying to do is to create a model of M/M/1 with reneging, i.e. an agent waits in queue for a (random) amount of time and then exits the queue via timeOut.
Also, I've inserted timeMeasureStart and timeMeasureEnd in order to find the mean time spent in queue for the agents which left the queue by timeOut: MM1 with reneging.
I've tried to set constant time, uniform, triangular and normal random time - the mean time (and the deviation) was as the theory predicts.
But when I tried to use exponential (and weibull), the mean time was significantly less then the mean value of the distribution.
I wonder if someone could explain to me why it happens?
I am currently working on a simple simulation that consists of 4 manufacturing workstations with different processing times and I would like to measure the WIP inside the system. The model is PennyFab2 in case anybody knows it.
So far, I have measured throughput and cycle time and I am calculating WIP using Little's law, however the results don't match he expectations. The cycle time is measured by using the time measure start and time measure end agents and the throughput by simply counting how many pieces flow through the end of the simulation.
Any ideas on how to directly measure WIP without using Little's law?
Thank you!
For little's law you count the arrivals, not the exits... but maybe it doesn't make a difference...
Otherwise.. There are so many ways
you can count the number of agents inside your system using a RestrictedAreaStart block and use the entitiesInside() function
You can just have a variable that adds +1 if something enters and -1 if something exits
No matter what, you need to add the information into a dataset or a statistics object and you get the mean of agents in your system
Little's Law defines the relationship between:
Work in Process =(WIP)
Throughput (or Flow rate)
Lead Time (or Flow Time)
This means that if you have 2 of the three you can calculate the third.
Since you have a simulation model you can record all three items explicitly and this would be my advice.
Little's Law should then be used to validate if you are recording the 3 values correctly.
You can record them as follows.
WIP = Record the average number of items in your system
Simplest way would be to count the number of items that entered the system and subtract the number of items that left the system. You simply do this calculation every time unit that makes sense for the resolution of your model (hourly, daily, weekly etc) and save the values to a DataSet or Statistics Object
Lead Time = The time a unit takes from entering the system to leaving the system
If you are using the Process Modelling Library (PML) simply use the timeMeasureStart and timeMeasureEnd Blocks, see the example model in the help file.
Throughput = the number of units out of the system per time unit
If you run the model and your average WIP is 10 units and on average a unit takes 5 days to exit the system, your throughput will be 10 units/5 days = 2 units/day
You can validate this by taking the total units that exited your system at the end of the simulation and dividing it by the number of time units your model ran
if you run a model with the above characteristics for 10 days you would expect 20 units to have exited the system.
I'd like to find out whether there is a relationship between CPU cycle time and pipeline depth. I have always thought that CPU cycle time is entirely determined by CPU frequency (opposite to frequency). This video, however, mentions that with a larger number of pipeline stages the cycle time can be decreased since every cycle we would do less work per stage. So what actually determines the CPU cycle time: the frequency or the number of stages in the pipeline? Or can we say that pipeline depth affects the frequency?
cycle time is literally defined as the inverse of frequency. This is just basic physics: f = 1/t where t is the period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency#Period_versus_frequency. Frequency has dimensions of 1/seconds.
Saying you can shorten the cycle time by lengthening the pipeline is just another way of stating the same thing as raising the frequency.
(And yes, chopping up one stage into two means you have two shorter critical paths instead of one long one that has to be ready before the end of a cycle to get latched for the next stage, removing that upper limit on cycle time. For a given gate delay propagation time, you can only fit a certain number of boolean operations into one clock cycle, and every stage has to have its output ready in time.)
See also Modern Microprocessors
A 90-Minute Guide!