1,721,044 research outputs found
A Worst-Case Latency and Age Analysis of Coded Distributed Computing With Unreliable Workers and Periodic Tasks
Full text linkOver the past decade, the deep learning revolution has led to ever-increasing demands for computing power and working memory to support larger and larger neural networks. As this coincided with the end of Moore’s law, distributed solutions have emerged as a natural answer: in particular, the novel Coded Distributed Computing (CDC) paradigm exploits results from coding theory to divide large tasks into redundant sets of smaller subtasks to be processed across multiple workers, making the computation more robust to stragglers and malicious worker nodes. Optimizing the use of these distributed computing resources is critical, as excessive redundancy might impact on performance and energy consumption. This work considers a CDC system receiving periodic tasks, deriving the full distribution of the latency, reliability, and Peak Age of Information (PAoI) under worker diversity and random failures. The CDC system is modeled as a fork-join queue, where only K of the coded N subtasks are necessary to solve the overall task, and workers can hold up to L subtasks in their queues. Our results are useful for resource optimization, showing the relationship between system load, redundancy, and latency, as well as the trade-off between latency, reliability, and age performance
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
On Age-of-Information Aware Resource Allocation for Industrial Control-Communication-Codesign
Full text linkUnter dem Überbegriff Industrie 4.0 wird in der industriellen Fertigung die zunehmende Digitalisierung und Vernetzung von industriellen Maschinen und Prozessen zusammengefasst. Die drahtlose, hoch-zuverlässige, niedrig-latente Kommunikation (engl. ultra-reliable low-latency communication, URLLC) – als Bestandteil von 5G gewährleistet höchste Dienstgüten, die mit industriellen drahtgebundenen Technologien vergleichbar sind und wird deshalb als Wegbereiter von Industrie 4.0 gesehen. Entgegen diesem Trend haben eine Reihe von Arbeiten im Forschungsbereich der vernetzten Regelungssysteme (engl. networked control systems, NCS) gezeigt, dass die hohen Dienstgüten von URLLC nicht notwendigerweise erforderlich sind, um eine hohe Regelgüte zu erzielen. Das Co-Design von Kommunikation und Regelung ermöglicht eine gemeinsame Optimierung von Regelgüte und Netzwerkparametern durch die Aufweichung der Grenze zwischen Netzwerk- und Applikationsschicht. Durch diese Verschränkung wird jedoch eine fundamentale (gemeinsame) Neuentwicklung von Regelungssystemen und Kommunikationsnetzen nötig, was ein Hindernis für die Verbreitung dieses Ansatzes darstellt. Stattdessen bedient sich diese Dissertation einem Co-Design-Ansatz, der beide Domänen weiterhin eindeutig voneinander abgrenzt, aber das Informationsalter (engl. age of information, AoI) als bedeutenden Schnittstellenparameter ausnutzt.
Diese Dissertation trägt dazu bei, die Echtzeitanwendungszuverlässigkeit als Folge der Überschreitung eines vorgegebenen Informationsalterschwellenwerts zu quantifizieren und fokussiert sich dabei auf den Paketverlust als Ursache. Anhand der Beispielanwendung eines fahrerlosen Transportsystems wird gezeigt, dass die zeitlich negative Korrelation von Paketfehlern, die in heutigen Systemen keine Rolle spielt, für Echtzeitanwendungen äußerst vorteilhaft ist. Mit der Annahme von schnellem Schwund als dominanter Fehlerursache auf der Luftschnittstelle werden durch zeitdiskrete Markovmodelle, die für die zwei Netzwerkarchitekturen Single-Hop und Dual-Hop präsentiert werden, Kommunikationsfehlerfolgen auf einen Applikationsfehler abgebildet. Diese Modellierung ermöglicht die analytische Ableitung von anwendungsbezogenen Zuverlässigkeitsmetriken wie die durschnittliche Dauer bis zu einem Fehler (engl. mean time to failure). Für Single-Hop-Netze wird das neuartige Ressourcenallokationsschema State-Aware Resource Allocation (SARA) entwickelt, das auf dem Informationsalter beruht und die Anwendungszuverlässigkeit im Vergleich zu statischer Multi-Konnektivität um Größenordnungen erhöht, während der Ressourcenverbrauch im Bereich von konventioneller Einzelkonnektivität bleibt.
Diese Zuverlässigkeit kann auch innerhalb eines Systems von Regelanwendungen, in welchem mehrere Agenten um eine begrenzte Anzahl Ressourcen konkurrieren, statistisch garantiert werden, wenn die Anzahl der verfügbaren Ressourcen pro Agent um ca. 10 % erhöht werden. Für das Dual-Hop Szenario wird darüberhinaus ein Optimierungsverfahren vorgestellt, das eine benutzerdefinierte Kostenfunktion minimiert, die niedrige Anwendungszuverlässigkeit, hohes Informationsalter und hohen durchschnittlichen Ressourcenverbrauch bestraft und so das benutzerdefinierte optimale SARA-Schema ableitet. Diese Optimierung kann offline durchgeführt und als Look-Up-Table in der unteren Medienzugriffsschicht zukünftiger industrieller Drahtlosnetze implementiert werden.:1. Introduction 1
1.1. The Need for an Industrial Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Related Work 7
2.1. Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Codesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1. The Need for Abstraction – Age of Information . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Deriving Proper Communications Requirements 17
3.1. Fundamentals of Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.3. Packet Losses and Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2. Joint Design of Control Loop with Packet Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1. Method 1: Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2. Method 2: Markov Jump Linear System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3. Focus Application: The AGV Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.1. Control Loop Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.2. Control Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.3. Joint Modeling: Applying Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3.4. Joint Modeling: Applying MJLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. Modeling Control-Communication Failures 43
4.1. Communication Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1.1. Small-Scale Fading as a Cause of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1.2. Connectivity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2. Failure Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.1. Single-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.2. Dual-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.1. Mean Time to Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.2. Packet Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.3. Average Number of Assigned Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3.4. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5. Single Hop – Single Agent 61
5.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.3. Erroneous Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6. Single Hop – Multiple Agents 71
6.1. Failure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.1.1. Admission Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.1.2. Transition Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.3. Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.1.4. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2. Illustration Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3.1. Verification through System-Level Simulation . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3.2. Applicability on the System Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.3.3. Comparison of Admission Control Schemes . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3.4. Impact of the Packet Loss Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.5. Impact of the Number of Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.6. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.7. Channel Saturation Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.3.8. Enforcing Full Channel Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7. Dual Hop – Single Agent 91
7.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2. Optimization Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.3.1. Extensive Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.3.2. Non-Integer-Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8. Conclusions and Outlook 105
8.1. Key Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
8.2. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A. DC Motor Model 111
Bibliography 113
Publications of the Author 127
List of Figures 129
List of Tables 131
List of Operators and Constants 133
List of Symbols 135
List of Acronyms 137
Curriculum Vitae 139In industrial manufacturing, Industry 4.0 refers to the ongoing convergence of the real and virtual worlds, enabled through intelligently interconnecting industrial machines and processes through information and communications technology. Ultrareliable low-latency communication (URLLC) is widely regarded as the enabling technology for Industry 4.0 due to its ability to fulfill highest quality-of-service (QoS) comparable to those of industrial wireline connections. In contrast to this trend, a range of works in the research domain of networked control systems have shown that URLLC’s supreme QoS is not necessarily required to achieve high quality-ofcontrol; the co-design of control and communication enables to jointly optimize and balance both quality-of-control parameters and network parameters through blurring the boundary between application and network layer. However, through the tight interlacing, this approach requires a fundamental (joint) redesign of both control systems and communication networks and may therefore not lead to short-term widespread adoption. Therefore, this thesis instead embraces a novel co-design approach which keeps both domains distinct but leverages the combination of control and communications by yet exploiting the age of information (AoI) as a valuable interface metric.
This thesis contributes to quantifying application dependability as a consequence of exceeding a given peak AoI with the particular focus on packet losses. The beneficial influence of negative temporal packet loss correlation on control performance is demonstrated by means of the automated guided vehicle use case. Assuming small-scale fading as the dominant cause of communication failure, a series of communication failures are mapped to an application failure through discrete-time Markov models for single-hop (e.g, only uplink or downlink) and dual-hop (e.g., subsequent uplink and downlink) architectures. This enables the derivation of application-related dependability metrics such as the mean time to failure in closed form. For single-hop networks, an AoI-aware resource allocation strategy termed state-aware resource allocation (SARA) is proposed that increases the application reliability by orders of magnitude compared to static multi-connectivity while keeping the resource consumption in the range of best-effort single-connectivity. This dependability can also be statistically guaranteed on a system level – where multiple agents compete for a limited number of resources – if the provided amount of resources per agent is increased by approximately 10 %. For the dual-hop scenario, an AoI-aware resource allocation optimization is developed that minimizes a user-defined penalty function that punishes low application reliability, high AoI, and high average resource consumption. This optimization may be carried out offline and each resulting optimal SARA scheme may be implemented as a look-up table in the lower medium access control layer of future wireless industrial networks.:1. Introduction 1
1.1. The Need for an Industrial Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Related Work 7
2.1. Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Codesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1. The Need for Abstraction – Age of Information . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Deriving Proper Communications Requirements 17
3.1. Fundamentals of Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.3. Packet Losses and Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2. Joint Design of Control Loop with Packet Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1. Method 1: Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2. Method 2: Markov Jump Linear System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3. Focus Application: The AGV Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.1. Control Loop Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.2. Control Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.3. Joint Modeling: Applying Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3.4. Joint Modeling: Applying MJLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. Modeling Control-Communication Failures 43
4.1. Communication Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1.1. Small-Scale Fading as a Cause of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1.2. Connectivity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2. Failure Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.1. Single-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.2. Dual-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.1. Mean Time to Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3.2. Packet Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3.3. Average Number of Assigned Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3.4. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5. Single Hop – Single Agent 61
5.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.3. Erroneous Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6. Single Hop – Multiple Agents 71
6.1. Failure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.1.1. Admission Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.1.2. Transition Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.3. Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.1.4. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2. Illustration Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3.1. Verification through System-Level Simulation . . . . . . . . . 78
6.3.2. Applicability on the System Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.3.3. Comparison of Admission Control Schemes . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3.4. Impact of the Packet Loss Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.5. Impact of the Number of Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.6. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.3.7. Channel Saturation Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.3.8. Enforcing Full Channel Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7. Dual Hop – Single Agent 91
7.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2. Optimization Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.3.1. Extensive Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.3.2. Non-Integer-Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8. Conclusions and Outlook 105
8.1. Key Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
8.2. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A. DC Motor Model 111
Bibliography 113
Publications of the Author 127
List of Figures 129
List of Tables 131
List of Operators and Constants 133
List of Symbols 135
List of Acronyms 137
Curriculum Vitae 13
- …
