I see such code segment in proposer_task(xcom_base.c)
if(threephase || ep->p->force_delivery){
push_msg_3p(ep->site, ep->p, ep->prepare_msg, ep->msgno, normal);
}else{
push_msg_2p(ep->site, ep->p);
}
the threepahse is int const threephase = 0 and force_delivery == 0 here
push_msg_eq is normal paxos include prepare, accept and learn phase
but push_msg_2p will skip prepare phase and directly send accept request
I want to know why, Thanks a lot.
If you look at the paper Paxos Made Simple page 10 paragraph 3 says:
A newly chosen leader executes phase 1 for infinitely many instances
of the consensus algorithm [...]
Then paragraph 4:
Since failure of the leader and election of a new one should be rare
events, the effective cost of executing a state machine command—that
is, of achieving consensus on the command/value—is the cost of
executing only phase 2 of the consensus algorithm. It can be shown
that phase 2 of the Paxos consensus algorithm has the minimum possible
cost of any algorithm for reaching agreement in the presence of faults.
Hence, the Paxos algorithm is essentially optimal.
This is saying that a leader only issues a prepare during a leader failover. After that it streams accept messages. It then has "optimal messaging" in that the leader only needs one round trip to know a value is chosen (the accept message and its acknowledgment).
In a three node cluster, a leader self-accepts instantaneously, then only needs one accept acknowledgment from a second node to have a majority. It then knows the value is chosen without having to await the response from the 3rd node (which could be down). That is as efficient as you can get. The value is known to be accepted at a second node with strong consistency.
Given that is how paxos works to get maximum efficiency we should expect that mysql xcom has a mode that skips the prepare message phase in steady state.
You can read more about the Paxos Made Simple techniques on my blog here.
You might be interested to know about the latest developments of Paxos where you don't need a majority response for accept messages in the cluster using FPaxos and tricks like the even nodes optimization.
Related
I have a confusion about the way the LSTM networks work when forecasting with an horizon that is not finite but I'm rather searching for a prediction in whatever time in future. In physical terms I would call it the evolution of the system.
Suppose I have a time series $y(t)$ (output) I want to forecast, and some external inputs $u_1(t), u_2(t),\cdots u_N(t)$ on which the series $y(t)$ depends.
It's common to use the lagged value of the output $y(t)$ as input for the network, such that I schematically have something like (let's consider for simplicity just lag 1 for the output and no lag for the external input):
[y(t-1), u_1(t), u_2(t),\cdots u_N(t)] \to y(t)
In this way of thinking the network, when one wants to do recursive forecast it is forced to use the predicted value at the previous step as input for the next step. In this way we have an effect of propagation of error that makes the long term forecast badly behaving.
Now, my confusion is, I'm thinking as a RNN as a kind of an (simple version) implementation of a state space model where I have the inputs, my output and one or more state variable responsible for the memory of the system. These variables are hidden and not observed.
So now the question, if there is this kind of variable taking already into account previous states of the system why would I need to use the lagged output value as input of my network/model ?
Getting rid of this does my long term forecast would be better, since I'm not expecting anymore the propagation of the error of the forecasted output. (I guess there will be anyway an error in the internal state propagating)
Thanks !
Please see DeepAR - a LSTM forecaster more than one step into the future.
The main contributions of the paper are twofold: (1) we propose an RNN
architecture for probabilistic forecasting, incorporating a negative
Binomial likelihood for count data as well as special treatment for
the case when the magnitudes of the time series vary widely; (2) we
demonstrate empirically on several real-world data sets that this
model produces accurate probabilistic forecasts across a range of
input characteristics, thus showing that modern deep learning-based
approaches can effective address the probabilistic forecasting
problem, which is in contrast to common belief in the field and the
mixed results
In this paper, they forecast multiple steps into the future, to negate exactly what you state here which is the error propagation.
Skipping several steps allows to get more accurate predictions, further into the future.
One more thing done in this paper is predicting percentiles, and interpolating, rather than predicting the value directly. This adds stability, and an error assessment.
Disclaimer - I read an older version of this paper.
I'm running a glmer model with a three-way interaction, which causes me to receive the following warning:
Warning:
In optwrap(optimizer, devfun, start, rho$lower, control = control, :
convergence code 1 from nlminbwrap
The warning is not there when the 3-way interaction is omitted, so I suspect it has to do with model complexity.
Unfortunately, there is no further information about the nature of the convergence issue in the warning (and also not in the model summary), which makes it hard to resolve. [I've tried different optimizers and increasing the nr of function evaluations already].
Is there any way of finding out what precisely convergence code 1 means? Also, I'm wondering whether it is as serious as when it says Model failed to converge? I've been looking for an answer in the R help pages and in the GLMM FAQs, but can't seem to find any. Any help is much appreciated!
Okay, so I've done some reading here with the hope of being able to help out a fellow linguist. Let's start with the model you specified in the comments:
model=glmer(Correct_or_incorrect~ (condition|CASE) + condition + sound + syll + condition:sound + condition:syll + syll:sound + condition:sound:syll, dataMelt, control=glmerControl(optimizer="nlminbwrap"), family = binomial)
The warning message code didn't say anything useful, but convergence code 1 from bobyqa at the very least used to be about exceeding the maximum number of function evaluations. How high did you try and go with the iterations? All you're going to lose is a few hours, so I would try and set it really high and see if the warning message goes away. All you'd be losing is computer time, and I personally think that's a small price to pay for a model that doesn't throw warnings.
You also mentioned that the warning was not there when the 3-way interaction is omitted, and I would be inclined to think that you are right concerning model complexity. If you don't have any specific hypotheses about that interaction I would leave it out and be done, but if you do, I think there are a few options that you haven't mentioned that you have tried yet.
There is a function called allFit() that will fit the model with all available optimizers. This would be a quick and easy way to see if your estimates are roughly the same among all the different optimizers. You run it on an already fitted model, like this:
allFit(model)
There is a good walkthough of using allFit() and it's different arguments here:https://joshua-nugent.github.io/allFit/ This page also has a lot of other potential solutions to your problem.
If you can, I would take advantage of a machine with multiple cores and run allFit with as many iterations as you can swing, and see if any of the optimizers don't give this warning, which is presumably about not minimizing the loss function before the iterations run out.
I'm a beginner in RL and want to know what is the advantage of having a state value function as well as an action-value function in RL algorithms, for example, Markov Design Process. What is the use of having both of them in prediction and control problems?
I think you mean state-value function and state-action-value function.
Quoting this answer by James MacGlashan:
To explain, lets first add a point of clarity. Value functions
(either V or Q) are always conditional on some policy 𝜋. To emphasize
this fact, we often write them as 𝑉𝜋(𝑠) and 𝑄𝜋(𝑠,𝑎). In the
case when we’re talking about the value functions conditional on the
optimal policy 𝜋∗, we often use the shorthand 𝑉∗(𝑠) and 𝑄∗(𝑠,𝑎).
Sometimes in literature we leave off the 𝜋 or * and just refer to V
and Q, because it’s implicit in the context, but ultimately, every
value function is always with respect to some policy.
Bearing that in mind, the definition of these functions should clarify
the distinction for you.
𝑉𝜋(𝑠) expresses the expected value of following policy 𝜋 forever
when the agent starts following it from state 𝑠.
𝑄𝜋(𝑠,𝑎) expresses the expected value of first taking action 𝑎
from state 𝑠 and then following policy 𝜋 forever.
The main difference then, is the Q-value lets you play a hypothetical
of potentially taking a different action in the first time step than
what the policy might prescribe and then following the policy from the
state the agent winds up in.
For example, suppose in state 𝑠 I’m one step away from a terminating
goal state and I get -1 reward for every transition until I reach the
goal. Suppose my policy is the optimal policy so that it always tells
to me walk toward the goal. In this case, 𝑉𝜋(𝑠)=−1 because I’m just
one step away. However, if I consider the Q-value for an action 𝑎
that walks 1 step away from the goal, then 𝑄𝜋(𝑠,𝑎)=−3 because
first I walk 1 step away (-1), and then I follow the policy which will
now take me two steps to get to the goal: one step to get back to
where I was (-1), and one step to get to the goal (-1), for a total of
-3 reward.
Learner might be in training stage, where it update Q-table for bunch of epoch.
In this stage, Q-table would be updated with gamma(discount rate), learning rate(alpha), and action would be chosen by random action rate.
After some epoch, when reward is getting stable, let me call this "training is done". Then do I have to ignore these parameters(gamma, learning rate, etc) after that?
I mean, in training stage, I got an action from Q-table like this:
if rand_float < rar:
action = rand.randint(0, num_actions - 1)
else:
action = np.argmax(Q[s_prime_as_index])
But after training stage, Do I have to remove rar, which means I have to get an action from Q-table like this?
action = np.argmax(self.Q[s_prime])
Once the value function has converged (values stop changing), you no longer need to run Q-value updates. This means gamma and alpha are no longer relevant, because they only effect updates.
The epsilon parameter is part of the exploration policy (e-greedy) and helps ensure that the agent visits all states infinitely many times in the limit. This is an important factor in ensuring that the agent's value function eventually converges to the correct value. Once we've deemed the value function converged however, there's no need to continue randomly taking actions that our value function doesn't believe to be best; we believe that the value function is optimal, so we extract the optimal policy by greedily choosing what it says is the best action in every state. We can just set epsilon to 0.
Although the answer provided by #Nick Walker is correct, here it's some additional information.
What you are talking about is closely related with the concept technically known as "exploration-exploitation trade-off". From Sutton & Barto book:
The agent has to exploit what it already knows in order to obtain
reward, but it also has to explore in order to make better action
selections in the future. The dilemma is that neither exploration nor
exploitation can be pursued exclusively without failing at the task.
The agent must try a variety of actions and progressively favor those
that appear to be best.
One way to implement the exploration-exploitation trade-off is using epsilon-greedy exploration, that is what you are using in your code sample. So, at the end, once the agent has converged to the optimal policy, the agent must select only those that exploite the current knowledge, i.e., you can forget the rand_float < rar part. Ideally you should decrease the epsilon parameters (rar in your case) with the number of episodes (or steps).
On the other hand, regarding the learning rate, it worths noting that theoretically this parameter should follow the Robbins-Monro conditions:
This means that the learning rate should decrease asymptotically. So, again, once the algorithm has converged you can (or better, you should) safely ignore the learning rate parameter.
In practice, sometimes you can simply maintain a fixed epsilon and alpha parameters until your algorithm converges and then put them as 0 (i.e., ignore them).
I need to make an application for creating logic circuits and seeing the results. This is primarily for use in A-Level (UK, 16-18 year olds generally) computing courses.
Ive never made any applications like this, so am not sure on the best design for storing the circuit and evaluating the results (at a resomable speed, say 100Hz on a 1.6Ghz single core computer).
Rather than have the circuit built from the basic gates (and, or, nand, etc) I want to allow these gates to be used to make "chips" which can then be used within other circuits (eg you might want to make a 8bit register chip, or a 16bit adder).
The problem is that the number of gates increases massively with such circuits, such that if the simulation worked on each individual gate it would have 1000's of gates to simulate, so I need to simplify these components that can be placed in a circuit so they can be simulated quickly.
I thought about generating a truth table for each component, then simulation could use a lookup table to find the outputs for a given input. The problem occurred to me though that the size of such tables increase massively with inputs. If a chip had 32 inputs, then the truth table needs 2^32 rows. This uses a massive amount of memory in many cases more than there is to use so isn't practical for non-trivial components, it also wont work with chips that can store their state (eg registers) since they cant be represented as a simply table of inputs and outputs.
I know I could just hardcode things like register chips, however since this is for educational purposes I want it so that people can make their own components as well as view and edit the implementations for standard ones. I considered allowing such components to be created and edited using code (eg dlls or a scripting language), so that an adder for example could be represented as "output = inputA + inputB" however that assumes that the students have done enough programming in the given language to be able to understand and write such plugins to mimic the results of their circuit which is likly to not be the case...
Is there some other way to take a boolean logic circuit and simplify it automatically so that the simulation can determine the outputs of a component quickly?
As for storing the components I was thinking of storing some kind of tree structure, such that each component is evaluated once all components that link to its inputs are evaluated.
eg consider: A.B + C
The simulator would first evaluate the AND gate, and then evaluate the OR gate using the output of the AND gate and C.
However it just occurred to me that in cases where the outputs link back round to the inputs, will cause a deadlock because there inputs will never all be evaluated...How can I overcome this, since the program can only evaluate one gate at a time?
Have you looked at Richard Bowles's simulator?
You're not the first person to want to build their own circuit simulator ;-).
My suggestion is to settle on a minimal set of primitives. When I began mine (which I plan to resume one of these days...) I had two primitives:
Source: zero inputs, one output that's always 1.
Transistor: two inputs A and B, one output that's A and not B.
Obviously I'm misusing the terminology a bit, not to mention neglecting the niceties of electronics. On the second point I recommend abstracting to wires that carry 1s and 0s like I did. I had a lot of fun drawing diagrams of gates and adders from these. When you can assemble them into circuits and draw a box round the set (with inputs and outputs) you can start building bigger things like multipliers.
If you want anything with loops you need to incorporate some kind of delay -- so each component needs to store the state of its outputs. On every cycle you update all the new states from the current states of the upstream components.
Edit Regarding your concerns on scalability, how about defaulting to the first principles method of simulating each component in terms of its state and upstream neighbours, but provide ways of optimising subcircuits:
If you have a subcircuit S with inputs A[m] with m < 8 (say, giving a maximum of 256 rows) and outputs B[n] and no loops, generate the truth table for S and use that. This could be done automatically for identified subcircuits (and reused if the subcircuit appears more than once) or by choice.
If you have a subcircuit with loops, you may still be able to generate a truth table. There are fixed-point finding methods which can help here.
If your subcircuit has delays (and they are significant to the enclosing circuit) the truth table can incorporate state columns. E.g. if the subcircuit has input A, inner state B, and output C, where C <- A and B, B <- A, the truth table could be:
A B | B C
0 0 | 0 0
0 1 | 0 0
1 0 | 1 0
1 1 | 1 1
If you have a subcircuit that the user asserts implements a particular known pattern such as "adder", provide an option for using a hard-coded implementation for updating that subcircuit instead of by simulating its inner parts.
When I made a circuit emulator (sadly, also incomplete and also unreleased), here's how I handled loops:
Each circuit element stores its boolean value
When an element "E0" changes its value, it notifies (via the observer pattern) all who depend on it
Each observing element evaluates its new value and does likewise
When the E0 change occurs, a level-1 list is kept of all elements affected. If an element already appears on this list, it gets remembered in a new level-2 list but doesn't continue to notify its observers. When the sequence which E0 began has stopped notifying new elements, the next queue level is handled. Ie: the sequence is followed and completed for the first element added to level-2, then the next added to level-2, etc. until all of level-x is complete, then you move to level-(x+1)
This is in no way complete. If you ever have multiple oscillators doing infinite loops, then no matter what order you take them in, one could prevent the other from ever getting its turn. My next goal was to alleviate this by limiting steps with clock-based sync'ing instead of cascading combinatorials, but I never got this far in my project.
You might want to take a look at the From Nand To Tetris in 12 steps course software. There is a video talking about it on youtube.
The course page is at: http://www1.idc.ac.il/tecs/
If you can disallow loops (outputs linking back to inputs), then you can significantly simplify the problem. In that case, for every input there will be exactly one definite output. Cycles however can make the output undecideable (or rather, constantly changing).
Evaluating a circuit without loops should be easy - just use the BFS algorithm with "junctions" (connections between logic gates) as the items in the list. Start off with all the inputs to all the gates in an "undefined" state. As soon as a gate has all inputs "defined" (either 1 or 0), calculate its output and add its output junctions to the BFS list. This way you only have to evaluate each gate and each junction once.
If there are loops, the same algorithm can be used, but the circuit can be built in such a way that it never comes to a "rest" and some junctions are always changing between 1 and 0.
OOps, actually, this algorithm can't be used in this case because the looped gates (and gates depending on them) would forever stay as "undefined".
You could introduce them to the concept of Karnaugh maps, which would help them simplify truth values for themselves.
You could hard code all the common ones. Then allow them to build their own out of the hard coded ones (which would include low level gates), which would be evaluated by evaluating each sub-component. Finally, if one of their "chips" has less than X inputs/outputs, you could "optimize" it into a lookup table. Maybe detect how common it is and only do this for the most used Y chips? This way you have a good speed/space tradeoff.
You could always JIT compile the circuits...
As I haven't really thought about it, I'm not really sure what approach I'd take.. but it would possibly be a hybrid method and I'd definitely hard code popular "chips" in too.
When I was playing around making a "digital circuit" simulation environment, I had each defined circuit (a basic gate, a mux, a demux and a couple of other primitives) associated with a transfer function (that is, a function that computes all outputs, based on the present inputs), an "agenda" structure (basically a linked list of "when to activate a specific transfer function), virtual wires and a global clock.
I arbitrarily set the wires to hard-modify the inputs whenever the output changed and the act of changing an input on any circuit to schedule a transfer function to be called after the gate delay. With this at hand, I could accommodate both clocked and unclocked circuit elements (a clocked element is set to have its transfer function run at "next clock transition, plus gate delay", any unclocked element just depends on the gate delay).
Never really got around to build a GUI for it, so I've never released the code.