So in many facebook games there are various buildings with different collect frequency and the number of collection you can make depends on the length and gap of periods of free time you have in a day.
Thinking about how to find the maximum occurrence of different frequency reminds me of words like knapsack and scheduling, but I forgot what's really the name of the algorithm about this or whether this is as difficult as those problems.
So, what's the name I am looking for?
Thanks.
(Test: Is it possible to bump a question in SO?)
Sounds like weighted interval scheduling.
A list of tasks is given as a set of time intervals; for instance, one task might run from 2:00 to 5:00 and another task might run from 6:00 to 8:00. Posed as an optimization problem, the goal is to maximize the number of executed tasks without overlapping the tasks. A request corresponds to an interval of time. We say that a subset of requests is compatible if no two of them overlap in time and our goal is to accept as large a compatible subset as possible. A compatible set of maximum size is called optimal.
Related
I am developing a logistics simulation in the factory by Anylogic. It's a pick up and delivery problem, where the AGVs need to pick up the parcel and deliver to the target location. All the AGVs are traveling following paths. The paths have different speed limits.
My goal is to reduce the time of traffic jam or waiting time for jobs to be picked up.
I have the leading time, job delivered time - job generated time.
But I from here, I want to identify the time of traffic jam or waiting time.
Is there a way to calculate the time from one spot to the other considering different speed limit of paths without waiting time or traffic jam? So that I could subtract this from leading time.
Let me know if I need to clarify something.
There is no build-in way to do this, you have to do it yourself. I have 3 ideas:
You compute this mathematically in the model yourself, i.e. write a function that computes the length of the total path and you have the ideal speed already, voila
You run a separate experiment and turn off all speed limits and other traffic: record the time in that ideal case and use that to compare
Similarly, you could do this in the same experiment during a warmup period: drive a fake transporter along the path and compute the perfect durations
I am currently completing some verification checks on an Anylogic DES simulation model, and I have two source blocks with identical hourly arrival rate schedules, broken down into 24 x 1h blocks.
The issue I am encountering is significant differences in the number of agents generated by one block compared with another. I understand that the arrival rate is based on the poisson distribution, so there is some level of randomness in the instants of agent generation, but I would expect that the overall number generated by these two blocks should be similar, if not identical. For example, in one operating scenario one block is generating 78 agents, whilst the other is only generating 67 over the 24h period. This seems to be a common issue across all operating scenarios.
Is there a potential explanation regarding idiosyncrasies within Anylogic that might explain this?
Any pointers would be welcomed.
I think it occurs because it follows a poisson distribution. To solve this, you could use the interarrival time function of the source block. In that case you would have the same number of arrivals for different source blocks. However, I'm not sure whether this fits a schedule. If not, you could use the getHourOfDay() function together with a parameter representing the interarrival time. You then have to write the code below for every hour of the day:
if(getHourOfDay()==14) parameter =5;
using sources with poisson distributions will definitely not produce same results... That's the magic of stocastic models.
An alternative to solve this problem is the following:
sources will generate using the inject function
use dynamic events that will be in charge to do source.inject();
let's imagine you have R trains coming per day, and this is a fixed value you want to use, you can then distribute the trains accross the day by doing this:
for(int i=0;i<R;i++){
create_DynamicEvent1(uniform(0,1),DAY); //for source1
create_DynamicEvent2(uniform(0,1),DAY); //for source2
}
This doesn't follow a poisson distribution, but generates a predefined number of arrivals of trains throughout the day, and you can use another distribution of your choice if the uniform is not good enough for you.
run this for every day
So Im trying to determine whether another vending machine is required in the gas station (it's an exercise not a real life problem). The only thing that Im given is the fact that each minute a customer is trying to use the vending machine and on average it takes 0.95 min for a customer to buy and pay for what he bought. Im having trouble with "arrivals defined by" field. The exercise says that I absolutely must use interarrival rate. It also says that the probability distribution is unknown and that it is most definitely not exponential. My question is the following, is there any way to define interarrival rate without using a distribution function. I tried inputing the number on it's own and the simulation doesn't work. I considered using rate even though Im not suppose to but it just didn't make sense since rate already considers the distribution to be exponential which isn't the case in my simulation.
Based on your requirement I absolutely must use interarrival rate I understand that you need to use an interarrival time, but not necessarily exponential. In this case you can choose any other distribution from a list of distributions (See below).
If you want those arrivals to be uniformly distributed, use the uniform distribution.
Or if you want them to arrive exactly every 5 minutes, create a bulk of the agents, delay them for 5 minutes and let them in to the system.
At the moment, my problem has four metrics. Each of these measures something entirely different (each has different units, a different range, etc.) and each is weighted externally. I am using Drools for scoring.
I only have only one score level (SimpleLongScore) and I have to find a way to appropriately combine the individual scores of these metrics onto one long value
The most significant problem at the moment is that the range of values for the metrics can be wildly different.
So if, for example, after a move the score of a metric with a small possible range improves by, say, 10%, that could be completely dwarfed by an alternate move which improves the metric with a larger range's score by only 1% because OptaPlanner only considers the actual score value rather than the possible range of values and how changes affect them proportionally (to my knowledge).
So, is there a way to handle this cleanly which is already part of OptaPlanner that I cannot find?
Is the only feasible solution to implement Pareto scoring? Because that seems like a hack-y nightmare.
So far I have code/math to compute the best-possible and worst-possible scores for a metric that I access from within the Drools and then I can compute where in that range a move puts us, but this also feel quite hack-y and will cause issues with incremental scoring if we want to scale non-linearly within that range.
I keep coming back to thinking I should just just bite the bullet and implement Pareto scoring.
Thanks!
Take a look at #ConstraintConfiguration and #ConstraintWeight in the docs.
Also take a look at the chapter "explaning the score", which can exactly tell you which constraint had which score impact on the best solution found.
If, however, you need pareto optimization, so you need multiple best solutions that don't dominate each other, then know that OptaPlanner doesn't support that yet, but I know of 2 cases that implemented it in OptaPlanner by hacking BestSolutionRecaller.
That being said, 99% of the cases that think of pareto optimization, are 100% happy with #ConstraintWeight instead, because users don't want multiple best solutions (except during simulations), they just want one in production.
I am confused by the hybrid modelling paradigm in Modelica. On one hand, events are useful, on the other hand, they are to be avoided. Let me explain my case:
I have a large model consisting of multiple buildings in a neighborhood that is simulated over 1 year. Initially, the model ran very slow. Adding noEvent() around as many if-conditions as possible drastically improved the speed.
As the development continued, the control of the model got more complicated, and I have again many events, sometimes at very short intervals. To give an idea:
Number of (model) time events : 28170
Number of (U) time events : 0
Number of state events : 22572
Number of step events : 0
These events blow up the output (for correct post-processing I need the variables at events) and slows the simulation. And moreover, I have the feeling that some of the noEvent(if...) lead to unexpected behavior.
I wonder if it would be a solution to force my events at certain time steps and prohibit them in between these time steps? Ideally, I would like to trigger these 'forced events' based on certain conditions. For example: during the day they should be every 15 minutes, at high solar radiation at every minute, during nights I don't want events at all.
Is this a good idea to do? I guess this will be faster as many of the state events will become time events? How can this be done with Modelica 3.2 (in Dymola)?
Thanks on beforehand for all answers.
Roel
A few comments.
First, if you have a simulation with lots of events (relative to the total duration of the simulation), the first thing I would encourage you to do is use a lower order integrator. The point here is that higher-order integrators normally allow you to take longer time steps. But if those steps are constantly truncated by events, they just end up being really expensive.
Second, you could try fixed-step integrators. Depending on the tool, they may implement this kind of "pool events and fire them all at once" kind of approach in the context of fixed-time step integrators. But the specification doesn't really say anything on how tools should deal with events that occur between fixed time steps.
Third, another way to approach this would be to "pool" your events yourself. The simplest way I could imagine doing this would be to take all the statements that currently generate events and wrap them in a "when sample(...,...) then" statement. This way, you could make sure that the events were only triggered at specific intervals. This would be more portable then the fixed time step approach. I think this is what you were actually proposing in your question but it is important to point out that it should not be based on time steps (the model has no concept of a time step) but rather on a model specified sampling interval (which will, in practice, be completely independent of time steps).
As you point out, using "sample(...,...)" will turn these into time events and, yes, this should be faster.