ATTEND Analytical Tools To Evaluate Negotiation Difficulty

Similar documents
ATTEND Analytical Tools To Evaluate Negotiation Difficulty

Proposed Solution to Mitigate Concerns Regarding AC Power Flow under Convergence Bidding. September 25, 2009

Vehicle Rotation Planning for Intercity Railways

Locomotive Allocation for Toll NZ

Aeronautical Engineering Design II Sizing Matrix and Carpet Plots. Prof. Dr. Serkan Özgen Dept. Aerospace Engineering Spring 2014

Towards smarter public transport

A14-18 Active Balancing of Batteries - final demo. Lauri Sorsa & Joonas Sainio Final demo presentation

A RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION (RFID) ENERGY EFFICIENCY MODEL FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. 8 th Renewable Energy Postgraduate Symposium,2017

PASSENGER DEMAND WEST CHECKPOINT November 2018 Scheduled Departing Passengers & Seats

Predicting Solutions to the Optimal Power Flow Problem

A Battery Smart Sensor and Its SOC Estimation Function for Assembled Lithium-Ion Batteries

Estimating scalability issues while finding an optimal assignmentjuly for 17, carpooling / 24

Multi Core Processing in VisionLab

The Session.. Rosaria Silipo Phil Winters KNIME KNIME.com AG. All Right Reserved.

Control of Mobile Robots

Use of Flow Network Modeling for the Design of an Intricate Cooling Manifold

Capacity Expansion. Operations Research. Anthony Papavasiliou 1 / 24

Dr. Daho Taghezout applied magnetics (CH 1110 Morges)

From Developing Credit Risk Models Using SAS Enterprise Miner and SAS/STAT. Full book available for purchase here.

PROBLEM SOLVING COACHES IN PHYSICS TUTORING PART 2: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION. Qing Xu 4/24/2010 MAAPT

Car Control Exercises Accident Avoidance Exercise - Setup Diagram

Mercury VTOL suas Testing and Measurement Plan

Modeling Contact with Abaqus/Standard

An approach based on Engineering a Safer World Systems Thinking Applied to Safety Leveson (2011)

Machine Design Optimization Based on Finite Element Analysis using

PSIM Tutorial. How to Use Lithium-Ion Battery Model

Scaling of Betweenness Centrality in Weighted Complex Networks

H. Hadera 1,2, I. Harjunkoski 1, G. Sand 1, I. E. Grossmann 3, S. Engell 2 1

MODELING QLC FLASH RELIABILITY. Nenad Miladinovic

Decommissioning & Re-use in NL: A Joint Effort

Deliverables. Genetic Algorithms- Basics. Characteristics of GAs. Switch Board Example. Genetic Operators. Schemata

AOPA Summit. Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT-ARC) UAT ARC. Presented to: By: Date:

Integrated Powertrain Control with Maple and MapleSim: Optimal Engine Operating Points

Crankcase scavenging.

UNCLASSIFIED FY 2017 OCO. FY 2017 Base

Dynamic Modeling of Large Complex Hydraulic System Based on Virtual Prototyping Gui-bo YU, Jian-zhuang ZHI *, Li-jun CAO and Qiao MA

Lane Closure Manual. Route Report Index: US12-A US12-03 (WB) US12-01 (EB WB) US12-02 (EB)

Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Form

OStrich: Fair Scheduler for Burst Submissions of Parallel Jobs. Krzysztof Rzadca Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Poland

Jeff Fehr, Senior Application Engineer. ACH550 Flux Optimization White Paper

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRC RESEARCH RESULTS UNLEADED HIGH OCTANE AVIATION GASOLINE A REPORT TO THE CRC UNLEADED AVGAS DEVELOPMENT PANEL

DC Food Truck Secondary Trading Platform

TUTORIAL Lithium Ion Battery Model

Operations Research & Advanced Analytics 2015 INFORMS Conference on Business Analytics & Operations Research

Optimization of Stopping Patterns and Service Plans for Intercity Passenger Railways

Gasket Simulations process considering design parameters

ROADWAY INJURY EXPERIENCE FOR PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN DRINKING AND/OR USING DRUGS

MODELING SUSPENSION DAMPER MODULES USING LS-DYNA

European Conference on Nanoelectronics and Embedded Systems for Electric Mobility. An Insight into Active Balancing for Lithium-Ion Batteries

3. Place of work. This should be where you are usually based, and where we can send correspondence for your attention.

Integrating RTN scheduling models with ISA-95 standard. Pedro M. Castro Ignacio E. Grossmann Iiro Harjunkoski

Abstract. Background and Study Description

Summary of Proposed Award. Driver Behavior Performance Monitoring System

Food Truck Parking Location Assignments

1 Configuration Space Path Planning

Effect of Sample Size and Method of Sampling Pig Weights on the Accuracy of Estimating the Mean Weight of the Population 1

Supplementary file S1 Individual co-plot of V-slope and lactate curve

Heating Methods. Reflux and Distillation

Autonomous inverted helicopter flight via reinforcement learning

Mutual trading strategy between customers and power generations based on load consuming patterns. Junyong Liu, Youbo Liu Sichuan University

Practical Issues Concerning Dispensing End Effectors Time Pressure

8. Supplementary Material

1 Configuration Space Path Planning

Using the NIST Tables for Accumulator Sizing James P. McAdams, PE

The Advantage of Real Atmospheric Distillation using D7345 Test Method. Presented by Jonathan Cole, PAC

MRC Field Trial Performance Report (Hugoton Deep Reservoir in Kansas) Revision 1.9

Draft Project Deliverables: Policy Implications and Technical Basis

Identification of tyre lateral force characteristic from handling data and functional suspension model

Rule-based Integration of Multiple Neural Networks Evolved Based on Cellular Automata

Using Statistics To Make Inferences 6. Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Test. Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test/ Mann-Whitney Test

ME scope Application Note 29 FEA Model Updating of an Aluminum Plate

Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI)

January 18, Docket: ER Energy Imbalance Market Special Report Transition Period September 2018 for Idaho Power Company

The 2nd International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

The further development of WWER-440 fuel design performance. Authors: V.B.Lushin, I.N.Vasilchenko, J.A.Ananjev, G.V.Abashina OKB "GIDROPRESS".

360 o Excavator. pre use check sheet page 1/5. How to use this check sheet:

DESIGN, SIMULATION AND TESTING OF SHRIMP ROVER USING RECURDYN

An Introduction to Automated Vehicles

MIT ICAT M I T I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r A i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

Full Vehicle Simulation for Electrification and Automated Driving Applications

CHAPTER NO. 3. Parameters

Aldo Dagnino. ABB Inc. US Corporate Research Center Raleigh, NC. A Methodology for Determining the Organization s Readiness for Process Improvement

Anytime Pareto Local Search

Characterization of crude:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS EAGLE COUNTY RECYCLE DROP-OFF COLLECTION CONTAINER HAULING

Department Mass Update (DMU) eform Online Training

MAXQ HRL in Soar. Mitchell Keith Bloch. University of Michigan. May 17, 2010

EcoGrid EU Quantitative Results

6.823 Computer System Architecture Prerequisite Self-Assessment Test Assigned Feb. 6, 2019 Due Feb 11, 2019

STUDY OF ENERGETIC BALANCE OF REGENERATIVE ELECTRIC VEHICLE IN A CITY DRIVING CYCLE

Aeroelastic Analysis of Aircraft Wings

MOTION NO. M Light Rail Vehicle Oil-less Rotary Scroll Air Compressor Upgrade PROPOSED ACTION

Articulated Dumper. pre use check sheet page 1/5. How to use this check sheet:

Richard Salliss & Rakesh Mehta New Approach to Refinery Crude Switch Optimization using Profit Suite and Unisim

Attitude Control. Actuators and Attitude Control

Project Summary Fuzzy Logic Control of Electric Motors and Motor Drives: Feasibility Study

ARC-H: Adaptive replacement cache management for heterogeneous storage devices

Routing and Planning for the Last Mile Mobility System

Bushing connector application in Suspension modeling

Eurathlon Scenario Application Paper (SAP) Review Sheet

Transcription:

ATTEND Analytical Tools To Evaluate Negotiation Difficulty Computational Complexity Fest USC ISI - September 6, 2000

Key Ideas: Difficulty Warnings that Allow Negotiation Systems to Adapt Partition task space into Those that truly requires negotiation Those that can be solved analytically Analytically resolvable Handled without negotiation Negotiation difficulty SESD = 98% GESD = 96% High Identify groups with different level of difficulty Negotiation difficulty warnings based on problem complexity Requires negotiation GESD Good-Enough Solution Difficulty SESD Soon-Enough Solution Difficulty SESD = 7% GESD = 8% SESD = 29% GESD = 31% Medium Low Techniques made available to any negotiation system via a general API

Impact on Negotiations: Adapt to Time & Quality Systems lack analytical methods to estimate negotiation difficulty and adapt their behavior accordingly: Can negotiations find any solution in the time available? Convergence Can negotiations find solutions with the desired quality and time constraints? Closure Can external changes destabilize the system? Stability

Relation of Techniques Under Consideration to Technical Goals Identify tasks that truly require negotiations Form groups with different difficulty level API Generate difficulty warnings by group Graph Coloring, K i -SAT Phase Transition Curves Graph Partitioning

Statistical Mechanics Approach: Color-flipping Mechanism E 1 = 2 ij w ij r r S S i j Track the energy relaxation with the number of of color flips during minimization using a Metropolis-type algorithm E i Slow Slow relaxing High High difficulty Fast Fast relaxing nodes nodes Low Low difficulty t number of steps

Phase-Transitions: Problem Difficulty Characterization Computational Cost K 3 K 2 Use transition curves and local value of of the order parameter to: to: K 1 Identify groups with with different difficulty level Generate difficulty warnings by by groups K i = number of available colors per node e 1 e 2 e 3 Connectivity

Current Activities SNAP scaling empirical studies Scaling properties with respect to resources availability Run SNAP experiments while varying the pilot, range and aircraft availability and the size of the problem

Measurements During a run N(t): Number of filled missions at time at which a new mission is filled At the end of each trial run Total number of generated missions Resource availability Fraction filled Execution time Over several runs Averages of N(t) over several runs

Basic Task/Resources Model in SNAP mission Role 1 Role 2 Role n Pilot requirements {q 1,q 5,q 36 } Aircraft Range

Resource Availability: Density Control Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri p1 80% r1 50% range blocking interval pilot blocking interval

CAMERA-SNAP Experiments Results Experimental procedure: 1. The number of Pilots, Ranges and Aircrafts was kept fixed and their percentage availability throughout the Planning Horizon was varied randomly (to meet the input availability density) by blocking time intervals of their available time 2. The size of the problem was controlled by randomly varying the total number of planned missions during the planning horizon (for FRAGS) 3. The planning horizon was kept fixed at 1 week 4. The execution time was measured in batch mode without any GUI cycles taken into account 5. FRAGS only and FRAGS/Training Mix

Decreasing Mission Scheduling Rate: FRAGS and Training missions ForReal case averaged over 20 runs 8000 7000 6000 80% 100% Time (msecs) 5000 4000 3000 2000 FRAGS 60% p1.0/a1.0/r1.0 p0.4/a1.0/r1.0 p1.0/a0.4/r1.0 p1.0/a1.0/r0.4 p0.8/a0.8/r0.8 p0.6/a0.6/r0.6 p0.6/a1.0/r1.0 p1.0/a0.6/r1.0 p1.0/a1.0/r0.6 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 mission number

Decreasing Mission Scheduling Rate For Different Aircraft Availability FRAGS only: 465 missions, 54 pilots, 30 range assignments, 123 aircrafts 6000 5000 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% Time (msecs) 4000 3000 50% 60% 2000 70% 1000 80% 90% 0 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 mission number

Execution Time and Percentage of Missions Filled For Different Aircraft Availability FRAGS only: 465 missions, 54 pilots, 30 range assignments, 123 aircrafts 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Percentage Filled Exec. Time/100 (secs) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Aircraft Availability

Mission Scheduling Rate For Different Size of the Problem Mission Commit Time 1400 1200 Time (msecs) 1000 800 600 400 637 Missions 324 Missions 130 Missions 200 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Mission Number

Execution Time vs. Number of Filled Missions Varying Pilots Availability and Problem size. Ranges and Aircraft Availability fixed at 100% Execution Time vs. Number of Filled Missions For Different Pilot Availability 70 60 Execution Time (secs) 50 40 30 20 Pilot 100% Pilot 90% Pilot 80% Pilot 70% Pilot 60% Pilot 50% Pilot 40% Pilot 30% Pilot 20% 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of Filled Missions

Execution Time vs. Number of Filled Missions Varying Ranges Availability and Problem size. Pilots and Aircraft Availability fixed at 100% 50 45 Execution Time vs. Filled Missions Execution Time (secs) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Ranges 100% Ranges 90% Ranges 80% Ranges 70% Ranges 60% Ranges 50% Ranges 40% Ranges 30% Ranges 20% 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Filled Missions

Near Linear Increase of Execution Time wrt the Total size of the Problem (For Pilots) FRAGS only, Varying Pilots Availability with Ranges and Aircraft Availability fixed at 100% ExecutionTime vs. Total Number Of Missions Planned For Different Pilot Availability 70 60 Execution Time (secs) 50 40 30 20 10 y = 7E-05x 2 + 0.0385x + 0.1049 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Total Number of Missions

Near Linear Increase of Execution Time wrt the Total size of the Problem (For Aircrafts) Varying ExecutionTime Aircraft vs. Total Availability Number of with Missions Ranges and Pilots Availability For Different Aircraft fixed Availability at 100% 60 Execution Time (secs) 50 40 30 20 10 y = 7E-05x 2 + 0.0353x - 0.1351 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Total Number of Missions

Near Linear Increase of Execution Time wrt the Total size of the Problem (For Ranges) Varying Range Availability with Aircrafts and Pilots Availability fixed at 100% ExecutionTime vs. Total Number of Missions 60 Ranges 100% Exectution Time (secs) 50 40 30 20 10 Ranges 20% 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Total Number of Missions

Experimental Setup Run in batch mode with a bash shell script file java -mx128m -ms64m \ -Ddce.install.path=${DCE_HOME_PCSYNTAX} \ -Dresource.subdir=\\`cygpath -w \`pwd\``\ edu.isi.dce.na.snap.executive.snexscalingmain \ -simulation.trace.output.filename.head xxx-$$ \ -batch true \ -randomnumactivitieswindow 25 \ -createobserver false \ -executionpolicy random \ -displaygui true \ -displaycommitments true \ -displayschedules true \ -scheduleresolution 30 \ -displayquals true \ -displaymessages false \ -displayrisk true\ -displaycomputation false \ -showsortiesgraph true \ -showcrpgraph true \ -shownumscheduledactionsgraph false \ -showpendingactivitiesgraph true \ -shownummessagesgraph true \ -showcommitratiograph true \ -pauseafterinitialization true \ -pilottrainingmanualfilename../pilotmodel/pilottrainingmanual-av8pqc-draft.xml \ -rangequalsfilename allknownranges.xml \ -rangeassignmentsfilename rangesvma513forreal.xml\ -eventsfilename eventsvma513.xml \ -aircraftfilename aircraftvma513forreal.xml\ -pilotsfilename pilotsvma513forreal.xml\ -starttime 2000-07-26T09:30:00Z \ -sortiesfilename sortiesvma513forreal.xml \ -guidancefilename guidancevma513forreal.xml \ -sortiecrawlingduration 30 \ -useequitybasedversion false \ -pilotrfcdelay 0 \ -setupfilename setupforrealab.csv \ -pilotrenegesforabetteroffer false $* Pilots, Aircrafts and Ranges initial availability data Setup File

Setup File:.csv file controlled from excel cross product Number of runs per trial Setup Behavior Detail Default x PilotData pilotsvma513forreal.xml x SortieData sortiesvma513forreal.xml x GuidanceData guidancevma513forreal.xml x RangeDensity 100 x RangeDensity 50 x RangeActivityInterval 30 x AircraftDensity 100 x AircraftDensity 80 x AircraftDensity 60 x AircraftDensity 40 x AircraftDensity 20 x AircraftActivityInterval 1440 x PilotDensity 100 x PilotDensity 80 x PilotDensity 60 x PilotDensity 40 x PilotDensity 20 x PilotActivityInterval 1440 x PilotRenegesForABetterOffer FALSE x PilotRFCDelay 0 x GridDimension 4 x NumberOfRuns 500 x RunDimension 50 x SortiesFactor 100 x Run 1 x Run 2 x Run 3 x Run 4 x Run 5 x Run 6 x Run 7 x Run 8 x Run 9 x Run 10 Percentage of available Airplanes slots Blocking Time Interval in minutes Total number of runs Percentage of Initial FRAGS created Identical Runs

Measurement Mechanism during a SNAP run Coding listeners one can implement actions at the sending (or receiving) time of a message Downcast a message to determine an action based on the message type Starfields and scaling measurements are implemented using this mechanism Problem Generator

Example: Measuring time at which a mission gets filled

Problem Generator Generate FRAGS only or FRAGS/Training mix missions Generates Pilots, Aircrafts and Ranges Their availability is sufficient to fill all generated missions

Outputs scaling.csv Run Number PilotDensity AircraftDensity RangeDensity TotalNumberOfSorties TotalNumberOfPilots TotalNumberOfRangeAssigments TotalNumberOfAircrafts SortiesFilled 1 1 1 1 59 18 19 10 47 2 1 0.8 1 44 18 19 10 28 3 1 0.6 1 35 18 19 10 16 4 1 0.4 1 37 18 19 10 13 5 1 0.2 1 34 18 19 10 11 6 1 1 1 70 18 19 10 48 7 1 0.8 1 40 18 19 10 27 8 1 0.6 1 33 18 19 10 16 9 1 0.4 1 44 18 19 10 13 10 1 0.2 1 44 18 19 10 11 11 1 1 1 61 18 19 10 48 12 1 0.8 1 43 18 19 10 28 13 1 0.6 1 35 18 19 10 16 14 1 0.4 1 34 18 19 10 13 15 1 0.2 1 36 18 19 10 11

Outputs schedrate.csv Time (msecs) mission number 2050 1 2053 2 2063 3 2063 4 2063 5 2073 6 2073 7 2073 8 2083 9 3195 10 3205 11 3355 12 3365 13 3365 14 3385 15 3395 16 3615 17 3886 18 3886 19 4036 20

Outputs ratelists.csv Mission Number time(msecs) time(msecs) time(msecs) time(msecs) time(msecs) 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 697 0 0 0 0 3 156 284 223 237 237 4 874 287 257 253 263 5 877 294 263 263 263 6 877 294 270 277 277 7 884 294 273 277 1302 8 887 297 273 277 1659 9 887 297 273 277 2129 10 887 297 797 721 2620 11 1495 727 831 887 3004 12 1519 774 1094 1162 3695 13 1592 858 1231 1525 4833 14 1612 914 1321 2110 15 1635 995 1449 2984 16 1679 1085 1779 17 1692 1225 2046 18 1812 1368 2266

The End