[Feature Request] Time/State-Dependent Baulking about ciw HOT 3 CLOSED

Implemented here: 9d00262

from ciw.

Hi, I love this idea. In fact, the baulking function could just take in the simulation object itself, and then have access to any property of the system it needs, including the time?

e.g.

def probability_of_baulking(Q, node_id):
    if len(Q.nodes[node_id].all_customers) < 3:
        return 0.0
    if len(Q.nodes[node_id].all_customers) < 7:
        return 0.5
    return 1.0

What do you think?

from ciw.

Hi, I love this idea. In fact, the baulking function could just take in the simulation object itself, and then have access to any property of the system it needs, including the time?

e.g.

def probability_of_baulking(Q, node_id):
    if len(Q.nodes[node_id].all_customers) < 3:
        return 0.0
    if len(Q.nodes[node_id].all_customers) < 7:
        return 0.5
    return 1.0

What do you think?

Thank you for considering my ideas! 😊

I can see how passing the simulation to probability_of_baulking naturally gives access to the top-level. From there the time and state can be accessed. I'm wondering, how would probability_of_baulking know which individual is being considered for baulking. That would be important for individual-dependent baulking behaviour. Would there be a natural way to access that information if the function signature was probability_of_baulking(Q, node_id)?

Here is my thinking for the function signature I suggested. Using the probability_of_baulking(next_node, next_individual) signature would communicate the pair of node and individual in consideration. In my opinion this is a natural default. However, if the time was needed, one could always use next_individual.simulation.current_time since every individual has a reference of simulation as an instance attribute. Similarly, next_individual.simulation.nodes should give access to arbitrary state information.

I suppose another option would be something like probability_of_baulking(Q, node_id, ind_id), but that means performing a search for the instance of the next node if we wanted it. It doesn't seem like a good option.

I know, I am slightly modifying the term type signature to a related note I am terming "function signature". I really am just talking about what parameters the function has.

Further discussion on this is welcome! I am still unfamiliar with most of the mechanisms in Ciw, so I may be missing something.

from ciw.