From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A28073B2A4 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0649892939; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:35:05 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1489347305; bh=H0B+rI2GIn3qGKnjSwf3hdNAQ7xP1Kzj8lJ8lIOHeBw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=p1Yd8PvEsmek7+2dnq8eYX9eWw3fNJIWJ0tkPB1gigVRpq4caHkpiDuKqE0QVuVHv A8gVvgPfTjvLEWs/9JRqAHifwqwoaCQ9hRVRQBlacsyF28PhHy9kQCqpMLie8+DSz4 Cpq5HLXIQYxdoqwgOK9mVQmgPDCjI1tJM417epUgA1zZjPc9L32E0Wztir0l/JH/xG /M3/So/d5VYJsAWdrr2YvMRUwn0UwVhEiPdjhrNHw82+/8NUsnvfbZYhy3whP/FBKV TXMW3VHBhOvn29xdDAr5MKC1U+rnxS+lvFrCN/imb8axyrBL5w9W5zREfletnxDwBM 6MFAtNwVAuaBg== Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D9D60ABA0AD; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:35:04 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Smedman Cc: mab-wifi@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <87mvcyshia.fsf@alrua-kau> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:35:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Bj=C3=B6rn?= Smedman"'s message of "Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:41:47 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87d1dmthjr.fsf@alrua-karlstad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [mab-wifi] Initial algorithm simulation results X-BeenThere: mab-wifi@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-armed-bandit WiFi rate control List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:35:06 -0000 Bj=C3=B6rn Smedman writes: > Hi Toke, > > It's great to see some practical results! I very much agree that more > of this is what we need to get going. > > I had a quick look at your pybandits code and the attached graph. Some > quick questions: What are your thoughts regarding > dependencies/covariances between "arms"? Will we be able to estimate > those from the data Thomas is collecting? Yeah, hopefully Thomas' data set will allow us to build some assumptions on relations between arms (and check those put forward in prior work). I have also been meaning to go digging for similar WiFi measurement studies in the literature; surely there is bound to be something that evaluates the same kinds of things we are interested in? Are you aware of any? > Any ideas on how we can simulate them? Well, this is a bit harder. I don't think expanding on the pyBandits scenario is going to provide any new insights into *how* the arms are related to each other; we can only encode our assumptions into that simulation and see how different algorithms are affected by it. But maybe a full protocol simulation, like that found in ns3, can be more helpful for exploring these relations. Depends a little bit on the capabilities of the 802.11 simulation there, I guess; see the separate thread related to that. > I have a feeling that estimating/simulating/exploiting these > dependencies/covariances will be key to achieving something > significantly better than Minstrel. I think that feeling is rooted in > an assumption that there are strong dependencies/covariances between > "arms", combined with my understanding that Minstrel models them as > independent Bernoulli distributed stochastic variables. I agree. And yeah, I think you're right that Minstrel basically considers them independently Bernoulli-distributed. I'm not quite clear on whether we need to try to collapse rates into fewer arms, or if we need to handle any relations between arms at the algorithmic level. Maybe both? -Toke