17.04.2015 Views

DARPA ULTRALOG Final Report - Industrial and Manufacturing ...

DARPA ULTRALOG Final Report - Industrial and Manufacturing ...

DARPA ULTRALOG Final Report - Industrial and Manufacturing ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Computational mechanics sets limits on how well processes can be predicted <strong>and</strong> shows how at<br />

least in principle, those limits can be attained. ε -machines are what any prediction method would<br />

build, if only they could. Similar to ε -machine reconstruction, techniques exists which can be<br />

used to discover casual architecture in memory less transducers, transducers with memory <strong>and</strong><br />

spatially extended systems (Shalizi 2000). Computational mechanics can be used for modeling<br />

<strong>and</strong> prediction in supply chains in the following way:<br />

• In systems like supply chain, it is difficult to define analogs of various thermodynamic<br />

quantities like energy, temperature, pressure etc as we can do for physical systems. Each<br />

component in the network has a cognition, which is absent in physical systems; say a<br />

molecule of a gas. Due to such difficulties statistical mechanics cannot be applied directly<br />

to build prediction models for supply chains. As discussed previously by not requiring a<br />

Hamiltonian (the energy like function), computational mechanics is still applicable in<br />

case of supply chains.<br />

• ε -machines can be built to discover patterns in behavior of various quantities in supply<br />

chains like the inventory levels, dem<strong>and</strong> fluctuations, etc.<br />

• ε -machines can be used for prediction through a process known as “synchronization”<br />

(Crutchfield <strong>and</strong> Feldman 2003).<br />

• ε -machines can be used to calculate various global properties like entropy rate, excess<br />

entropy <strong>and</strong> statistical complexity, that reflect how the system stores <strong>and</strong> processes<br />

information. The significance of these quantities has been discussed earlier.<br />

• We can also quantify notions of Complexity, Emergence <strong>and</strong> Self-Organization in terms<br />

of various information measures derived from ε -machines. By evaluating such quantities<br />

we can compare complexity of different supply chains <strong>and</strong> quantify the extent to which<br />

the network is showing emergence. We can also infer when a supply chain is undergoing<br />

self-organization <strong>and</strong> to what extent. Such quantification can help us to compare<br />

precisely what policies or cognitive capabilities possessed by individual agents can lead<br />

to different degrees of emergence <strong>and</strong> self-organization. Hence we can decide to what<br />

extent we desire to enforce the control <strong>and</strong> to what extent we want to let the network<br />

emerge.<br />

7. Network Dynamics<br />

The ubiquity of networks in the social, biological <strong>and</strong> physical sciences <strong>and</strong> in technology leads<br />

naturally to an important set of common problems, which are being currently studied under the<br />

rubric of “Network Dynamics” (Strogatz 2001). Structure always affects function <strong>and</strong> it is<br />

important to consider dynamical <strong>and</strong> structural complexity together in the study of networks. For<br />

instance, the topology of social networks affects the spread of information <strong>and</strong> disease, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

topology of the power grid affects the robustness <strong>and</strong> stability of power transmission. The<br />

different problem areas in network dynamics are discussed below.<br />

One area of research in this field has been primarily concerned with the dynamical complexity<br />

in regular networks without regard to other network topologies. While the collective behavior<br />

depends on the details of the network, some generalization can still be drawn (Strogatz 2001). For<br />

instance, if the dynamical system at each node has stable fixed points <strong>and</strong> no other attractor, the<br />

network tends to lock into a static fixed pattern. If the nodes have competing interactions,<br />

network may become frustrated <strong>and</strong> display enormous number of locally stable equilibria. In the<br />

intermediate case where each node has a stable limit cycle, synchronization <strong>and</strong> patterns like<br />

traveling waves can be observed. For non-identical oscillators temporal analogue of phase<br />

transition can be seen with the control parameter as the coupling coefficient. At the opposite<br />

extreme if each node has identical chaotic attractor, the network can synchronize their erratic<br />

fluctuations. For a wide range of network topologies, synchronized chaos requires that the<br />

coupling be neither too weak nor too strong; otherwise spatial instabilities are triggered. Related

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!