DEVS Markov Framework Integrating Diverse Simulation Components

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing simulation tools face challenges in integrating diverse components due to complexity arising from detailed deterministic representations, limiting their ability to handle probabilistic data from Monte Carlo simulations.

Innovation Solution

The DEVS Markov modeling framework provides a method for system integration through system coupling, enabling the synergistic integration of diverse modeling tools by combining time management with probabilistic perspectives, thereby enhancing simulation accuracy and predictability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If diverse simulation modeling tools are integrated to create comprehensive simulation suites, then the capability to model complex systems is improved, but the complexity of integrating deterministic representations from multiple tools increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecapability to model complex systemsVSAvoidcomplexity of integrating deterministic representations
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a probabilistic data structure as an intermediary layer between diverse deterministic simulation tools and the integrated simulation environment. This intermediary converts deterministic outputs from various tools into a unified probabilistic framework, enabling integration without requiring direct compatibility between deterministic representations. The probabilistic structure acts as a mediator that harmonizes different tool outputs while preserving their individual characteristics.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transforms deterministic simulation parameters into probabilistic parameters, changing the fundamental nature of the data representation. By converting fixed deterministic values into probability distributions, the system can accommodate uncertainty and variability inherent in complex system modeling. This parameter transformation enables diverse tools with different deterministic assumptions to be integrated into a unified probabilistic framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Measurement precision

If detailed deterministic representations of system operation are used, then the precision of individual tool models is improved, but the difficulty of integrating probabilistic data from Monte Carlo simulations increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprecision of individual tool modelsVSAvoiddifficulty of integrating probabilistic data
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter transformation by converting deterministic model outputs into probabilistic distributions. This allows individual tools to maintain their precise deterministic representations while the integration framework operates in the probabilistic domain. The transformation preserves the precision of individual models by encoding their deterministic behavior as probability distributions with appropriate parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The probabilistic data structure serves as an intermediary that bridges deterministic precision and probabilistic integration. It receives precise deterministic outputs from individual tools and transforms them into a format suitable for Monte Carlo simulations and other probabilistic analyses, thereby eliminating the difficulty of direct integration between deterministic and probabilistic frameworks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple diverse modeling tools are integrated into a unified framework, then the versatility of the simulation system is improved, but the execution time of the simulation increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveversatility of simulation systemVSAvoidexecution time of simulation
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the simulation execution into distinct phases: deterministic model execution, probabilistic transformation, and integrated analysis. By dividing the workflow into separate stages, each tool can execute efficiently in its optimal mode without the overhead of continuous probabilistic processing. The segmentation allows parallel execution of independent deterministic models before their results are combined in the probabilistic framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial probabilistic processing by transforming only the necessary outputs from deterministic models into probabilistic form, rather than converting entire model states. This selective transformation reduces the computational burden while maintaining the versatility needed for probabilistic analysis. Only the critical parameters requiring probabilistic treatment are transformed, leaving other deterministic computations unchanged.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12265763B2Method to integrate diverse components for simulation of complex system
Publication Date: 2025.04.01 RTSYNC CORP
  • US12265763B2 patent drawing
  • US12265763B2 patent drawing
  • US12265763B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The external heterogeneity in the Discrete Event System Specification (DEVS) for simulators refers to the ability to incorporate different types of models, each with potentially different behaviors, into a single simulation environment. In the DEVS framework, a system is composed of multiple individual models, each representing a component of the system. These models can be either atomic (cannot be decomposed further) or coupled (composed of other models). This gives DEVS its hierarchical nature. The atomic or coupled models can in DEVS Markov models be fundamentally different from each other. For example, one model might represent a deterministic rule-based decision process, while another model might represent a probabilistic random variable generator. These models have different state variables, different event sets, and different transition functions, but they can still interact with each other within the same simulation.