User Tools

Site Tools


people:james_vickers

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
people:james_vickers [2014/11/06 08:32] jvick3people:james_vickers [2014/12/07 22:37] (current) jvick3
Line 5: Line 5:
 Contact: jvick3@unm.edu Contact: jvick3@unm.edu
  
-[[people:james_vickers:crit1|Crit materials]]+[[people:james_vickers:project_submission|Project submission]] 
 + 
 +[[people:james_vickers:crit3|Crit materials]]
  
 [[people:james_vickers:crit2|Crit 2 materials]] [[people:james_vickers:crit2|Crit 2 materials]]
 +
 +[[people:james_vickers:crit1|Crit 1 materials]]
  
 [[people:james_vickers:researcher_pres|Alife researcher presentation materials]] [[people:james_vickers:researcher_pres|Alife researcher presentation materials]]
- 
-{{:people:james_vickers:model_desc_v2.pdf|Model description, v2 (PDF)}} 
- 
-[[people:james_vickers:model_desc_v2_plain|Model description, v2 (plain text)]] 
- 
-[[people:james_vickers:Figure 1|Figure 1]] 
  
 Current title/abstract: Current title/abstract:
Line 26: Line 24:
  
 **Journal** **Journal**
 +
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +**11/21/2014**
 +
 +As I was writing my paper a few days ago, I found myself trying to explain why my Isolator'
 +are programming to only do their swapping routine (//Bubble Repulsion//) when they are at a particular
 +distance from an Element (R-1).  I could not for the life of me come up for why that was...I had 
 +originally done it because I thought I had seen it acting unstable without this check.  It was kind
 +of an artifact of previous failed implementations of Bubble Repulsion.  I decided to remove this
 +restriction and test it out.  It appeared to work well, better even.  I'm just about done re-running
 +my experiment script with the slightly modified behavior; it looks like the protection performance
 +of Isolator got better with this change.  It basically allows more Isolator's to engage in repulsion
 +by allowing them to do so regardless of their distance from their protectee Atom.
 +
 +**Edit:** Wow, allowing Isolator's at any distance to repulse (rather than just R-1) improved the 
 +protection performance pretty significantly.  You can see the difference in some of my graphs, but the 
 +//half-lifes// really tell the tale.  I define half-life as the time in AEPS it takes for half of the Atom's in an experiment to be wiped out (by Eraser, usually).  A couple notable comparisons between limited and full repulsion:
 +
 +Eraser Distance 4, Inner Radius 3: \\
 +Limited repulsion: Data Half-life = 2565, Eraser Half-life = 175\\
 +Full repulsion:    Data Half-life = 16150 (+ 529.6%), Eraser Half-life = 180 (+ 2.9%)\\
 +**Note: Eraser half-life doesn't change much because with Eraser Distance of 4, Isolator cannot surround it for long!**\\
 +
 +Eraser Distance 1, Inner Radius 2:\\
 +Limited repulsion: Data Half-life = 5001, Eraser Half-life = 18765\\
 +Full Repulsion: Data Half-life = 17155 (+ 243.0%), Eraser Half-life = 39245 (+ 109.1%)\\
 +
 +I'm very happy with this improvement.  It makes the algorithm simpler, and yet do its job a lot better.  What's not to like?
 +
  
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
people/james_vickers.1415262755.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/11/06 08:32 by jvick3