1983
DOI: 10.1145/182.358460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulation modeling with event graphs

Abstract: Statistical Computing fU)bert Sargent

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
122
0
2

Year Published

1995
1995
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 237 publications
(124 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
122
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For the latter, the activity-cycle diagram served several SPLs and was the basis for the interactive program generation work in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Event Graphs were introduced by Schruben (1983) to assist in model building using the event world view and further developed by Sargent (1988) and Som and Sargent (1989). (We note that a representation similar to event graphs was introduced in Evans et al 1967, but apparently not further developed.…”
Section: Internal Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the latter, the activity-cycle diagram served several SPLs and was the basis for the interactive program generation work in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Event Graphs were introduced by Schruben (1983) to assist in model building using the event world view and further developed by Sargent (1988) and Som and Sargent (1989). (We note that a representation similar to event graphs was introduced in Evans et al 1967, but apparently not further developed.…”
Section: Internal Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This would be an important issue, for instance, in capacitated queueing Systems, queueing Systems with state-dependent routing as well as preemptive and non-preemptive priority and multiple customer-class queueing Systems. Schruben (1983) and Sargent (1988) propose rules of thumb to signal potential problems with simultaneously scheduled events. Som and Sargent (1989) develop conditions to identify when event exécution priorities need to be established.…”
Section: Consequences and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section we briefly present event graphs [15]. In this formalism, events are depicted as nodes in a graph.…”
Section: Distributed Event Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1] LocalVirtualTime.time = 0 // Simulation time for component [2] EventQueue.first = Initial Event // Event queue is initially empty [3] for all i in InputPort: i.clock = 0 // Set clocks for each port to 0 [4] ExecutionPointer.STEP() // Do one step, inserting internal events in queue [5] while LocalVirtualTime.timeHorizon < LocalVirtualTime.finalTime: // loop until simulation final time [6] for all i in InputPort: await not_empty(i) // wait for an event in the input port [7] for all i in InputPort: i.clock=max_timeStamp(i) // i.clock is the bigger timeStamp of any event in i [8] LocalVirtualTime.timeHorizon=min(i.clock for i in InputPort) // The process time horizon is the smaller clock of all ports [9] min_channel_id = i such that its clock is the smallest [10] if (Event.Queue.first.scheduledTime <= LocalVirtualTime.timeHorizon) [11] or (InputPort [min_channel_id].first.scheduledTime <= [12] LocalVirtualTime.timeHorizon): [13] if (Event.Queue.first.scheduledTime < [14] InputPort [min_channel_id].first.scheduledTime): [15] event = removeFirst(Event.Queue) [16] else In conservative protocols, LPs have a time horizon, which is the maximum simulation time it is safe to reach. Beyond this point causality errors may occur with incoming events.…”
Section: Distributed Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation