1 simulation de modèles de mobilité : paradoxes et étrangetés jean-yves le boudec epfl en...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Simulation de modèles de mobilité : paradoxes et étrangetés
Jean-Yves Le Boudec
EPFL
En collaboration avec
Milan Vojnović
Microsoft Research
2
Résumé
Les ingénieurs qui développent des systèmes de communication mobile ont souvent recours à la simulation dans les phases de conception et de simulation. Bien que conceptuellement très simple, la simulation peut poser des problèmes parfois déroutants. Par exemple, des simulations de durées différentes donnent des résultats différents, et plus la simulation est longue, plus les résultats sont différents. Ces phénomènes peuvent être expliqués, et quelque fois entièrement évités, par la théorie des probabilités, et en particulier le calcul de Palm pour les processus ponctuels stationnaires – une théorie initialement développée dans le cadre des files d’attente.
[LV06] The Random Trip Model: Stability, Stationary Regime, and Perfect Simulation, J.-Y. Le Boudec and Milan Vojnović, ACM/IEEE Trans. on Networking, Dec 06
[L04] Understanding the simulation of mobility models with Palm calculus, J.-Y. Le Boudec, Performance Evaluation, 2007
3
Outline
Simulation Issues with mobility models
Palm calculus
Stability
Stationary distributions and Perfect Simulation
Random Waypoint (Johnson and Maltz`96)
Used at IETF to evaluate performance of ad-hoc routing protocols
Node picks next waypoint Xn+1 uniformly in area
Picks speed Vn uniformly in [vmin,vmax]
Moves to Xn+1 with speed Vn
4
Xn
Xn+1
5
Path Pn
Xn
Xn+1
Swiss Flag [LV05]
Non convex domain
Random Waypoint on Non Convex Area
6
City-section, Camp et al [CBD02]
More Realistic Model
7
Issue about speed
Distributions of node speed, position, distances, etc change with time
Node speed:
100 users average
1 user
Time (s)
Spe
ed (
m/s
)900 s
8
Node Position
Distributions of node speed, position, distances, etc change with time
Distribution of node position:
Time = 0 sec Time = 2000 sec
9
Why does it matter ?A. In the mobile case, the nodes are more often towards the center, distance between nodes is shorter, performance is betterThe comparison is flawed. Should use for static case the same distribution of node location as random waypoint. Is there such a distribution to compare against ?
Random waypoint
Static
A (true) example: Compare impact of mobility on a protocol:
Experimenter places nodes uniformly for static case, according to random waypoint for mobile case
Finds that static is better
Q. Find the bug !
10
Issues with Mobility Models
Is there a stable distribution of the simulation state (time-stationary distribution), reached if we run the simulation long enough ?
If so:
How long is long enough ?
If it is too long, is there a way to get to the stable distribution without running long simulations (perfect simulation) ?
11
Outline
Simulation Issues with mobility models
Palm calculus
Stability
Stationary distributions and Perfect Simulation
12
Palm Calculus
Relates time averages versus event averagesAn old topic in queueing theory
Now well understood by mathematicians under the name Palm Calculus
13
Palm Calculus Framework
A stationary process (simulation) with state St.
Some quantity Xt measured at time t. Assume that
(St;Xt) is jointly stationary
I.e., St is in a stationary regime and Xt depends on the past, present and future state of the simulation in a way that is invariant by shift of time origin.
ExamplesSt = current position of mobile, speed, and next waypoint
Jointly stationary with St: Xt = current speed at time t; Xt = time to be run until next waypoint
Not jointly stationary with St: Xt = time at which last waypoint occurred
14
Palm ExpectationConsider some selected transitions of the simulation, occurring at times Tn.
Example: Tn = time of nth trip end
Definition : the Palm Expectation is
Et(Xt) = E(Xt | a selected transition occurred at time t)
By stationarity:
Et(Xt) = E0(X0)
Example: Tn = time of nth trip end, Xt = instant speed at time t
Et(Xt) = E0(X0) = average speed observed at a waypoint
15
Event versus Time Averages
E(Xt) = E(X0) expresses the time average viewpoint.
Et(Xt) = E0(X0) expresses the event average viewpoint.
Example: Tn = time of nth trip end, Xt = instant speed at time t
Et(Xt) = E0(X0) = average speed observed at trip end
E(Xt)=E(X0) = average speed observed at an arbitrary point in time
18
Two Palm Calculus Formulas Intensity of selected transitions: := expected number of transitions per time unit Intensity Formula:
where by convention T0 · 0 < T1
Inversion Formula
The proofs are simple in discrete time – see [L04]
19
A Classical Example
20
Outline
Simulation Issues with mobility models
Palm calculus
Stability
Stationary distributions and Perfect Simulation
21
Necessary Condition for Existence of a Stationary Regime
Apply the intensity formula to Tn = trip end times
Thus: if the random trip has a stationary regime it must be that the mean trip duration sampled at trip end times is finite
On bounded area, means: mean of inverse of speed is finite
Converse is true [LV06]
22
A Random waypoint model that has no stationary regime !
Assume that at trip transitions, node speed is sampled uniformly on [vmin,vmax]
Take vmin = 0 and vmax > 0
Mean trip duration = (mean trip distance)
Mean trip duration is infinite !
Was often used in practice
Speed decay: “considered harmful” [YLN03]
max
0max
1v
v
dv
v
What happens when the model does not have a stationary regime ?
The simulation becomes old
24
Outline
Simulation Issues with mobility models
Palm calculus
Stability
Stationary distributions and Perfect Simulation
Stationary Distribution of Speed
Closed Form Assume a stationary regime exists and simulation is run long enough
Apply inversion formula and obtain distribution of instantaneous speed V(t)
27
Removing Transient MattersA. In the mobile case, the nodes are more often towards the center, distance between nodes is shorter, performance is betterThe comparison is flawed. Should use for static case the same distribution of node location as random waypoint. Is there such a distribution to compare against ?
Random waypoint
Static
A (true) example: Compare impact of mobility on a protocol:
Experimenter places nodes uniformly for static case, according to random waypoint for mobile case
Finds that static is better
Q. Find the bug !
28
Removing Transients May Take Long
If model is stable and initial state is drawn from distribution other than time-stationary distribution
The distribution of node state converges to the time-stationary distribution
Naïve: so, let’s simply truncate an initial simulation duration
The problem is that initial transience can last very long
Example [space graph]: node speed = 1.25 m/sbounding area = 1km x 1km
29
Perfect simulation is highly desirable (2)
Distribution of path:
Time = 100s
Time = 50s
Time = 300s
Time = 500s
Time = 1000s
Time = 2000s
Solution: Perfect Simulation
Def: a simulation that starts with stationary distribution
Usually difficult except for specific models
Possible if we know the stationary distribution
Sample Prev and Next waypoints from their joint stationary distributionSample M uniformly on segment [Prev,Next]Sample speed V from stationary distribution
Stationary Distrib of Prev and Next
Stationary Distribution of Location
Stationary Distribution of Location
There is a closed form for stationary distribution of location but it is ugly and hard to sample from – not to be used in practice [LV04]
A Fair Comparison
We revisit the comparison by sampling the static case from the stationary regime of the random waypoint
Random waypoint
Static, from uniform
Static, same node location as RWP
No Speed Decay
Conclusions
Les simulations peuvent ne pas avoir de régime stationaire par vieillissement plutôt qu’explosion
Si régime stationaire existe, il faut éliminer les transitoires ou faire une simulation parfaite
Le calcul de Palm permet de faire une simulation parfaite pour ce type de modèles
37
References
[ARMA02] Scale-free dynamics in the movement patterns of jackals, R. P. D. Atkinson, C. J. Rhodes, D. W. Macdonald, R. M. Anderson, OIKOS, Nordic Ecological Society, A Journal of Ecology, 2002
[CBD02] A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research, T. Camp, J. Boleng, V. Davies, Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing, vol 2, no 5, 2002
[CHC+06] Impact of Human Mobility on the Design of Opportunistic Forwarding Algorithms, A. Chaintreau, P. Hui, J. Crowcroft, C. Diot, R. Gass, J. Scott, IEEE Infocom 2006
[E01] Stochastic billiards on general tables, S. N. Evans, The Annals of Applied Probability, vol 11, no 2, 2001
[GL06] Analysis of random mobility models with PDE’s, M. Garetto, E. Leonardi, ACM Mobihoc 2006
[JBAS+02] Towards realistic mobility models for mobile ad hoc networks, A. Jardosh, E. M. Belding-Royer, K. C. Almeroth, S. Suri, ACM Mobicom 2003
[KS05] Anomalous diffusion spreads its wings, J. Klafter and I. M. Sokolov, Physics World, Aug 2005
38
References (2)
[L04] Understanding the simulation of mobility models with Palm calculus,J.-Y. Le Boudec, accepted to Performance Evaluation, 2006
[LV05] Perfect simulation and stationarity of a class of mobility models, J.-Y. Le Boudec and M. Vojnovic, IEEE Infocom 2005
[LV06] The random trip model: stability, stationary regime, and perfect Simulation, J.-Y. Le Boudec and M. Vojnovic, MSR-TR-2006-26, Microsoft Research Technical Report, 2006
[M87] Routing in the Manhattan street network, N. F. Maxemchuk, IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol COM-35, No 5, May 1987
[NT+05] Properties of random direction models, P. Nain, D. Towsley, B. Liu, and Z. Liu, IEEE Infocom 2005
[PLV05] Palm stationary distributions of random trip models, S. PalChaudhuri, J.-Y. Le Boudec, M. Vojnovic, 38th Annual Simulation Symposium, April 2005
39
References (3)
[RMM01] An analysis of the optimum node density for ad hoc mobile networks, ICC 2001
[S64] Principles of random walk, F. Spitzer, 2nd Edt, Springer, 1976
[SMS06] Delay and capacity trade-offs in mobile ad hoc networks: a global perspective, G. Sharma, R. Mazumdar, N. Shroff, IEEE Infocom 2006
[SZK93] Strange kinetics (review article), M. F. Shlesinger, G. M. Zaslavsky, J. Klafter, Nature, May 1993
[YLN03] Random waypoint considered harmful, J. Yoon, M. Liu, B. Noble, IEEE Infocom 2003