Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2411.04266

Generative Discrete Event Process Simulation for Hidden Markov Models to Predict Competitor Time-to-Market

Nandakishore Santhi·Stephan Eidenbenz·Brian Key·George Tompkins
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study the challenge of predicting the time at which a competitor product, such as a novel high-capacity EV battery or a new car model, will be available to customers; as new information is obtained, this time-to-market estimate is revised. Our scenario is as follows: We assume that the product is under development at a Firm B, which is a competitor to Firm A; as they are in the same industry, Firm A has a relatively good understanding of the processes and steps required to produce the product. While Firm B tries to keep its activities hidden (think of stealth-mode for start-ups), Firm A is nevertheless able to gain periodic insights by observing what type of resources Firm B is using. We show how Firm A can build a model that predicts when Firm B will be ready to sell its product; the model leverages knowledge of the underlying processes and required resources to build a Parallel Discrete Simulation (PDES)-based process model that it then uses as a generative model to train a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). We study the question of how many resource observations Firm A requires in order to accurately assess the current state of development at Firm B. In order to gain general insights into the capabilities of this approach, we study the effect of different process graph densities, different densities of the resource-activity maps, etc., and also scaling properties as we increase the number resource counts. We find that in most cases, the HMM achieves a prediction accuracy of 70 to 80 percent after 20 (daily) observations of a production process that lasts 150 days on average and we characterize the effects of different problem instance densities on this prediction accuracy. Our results give insight into the level of market knowledge required for accurate and early time-to-market prediction.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nandakishore Santhi, Stephan Eidenbenz, Brian Key, George Tompkins. 2024-11-06. Generative Discrete Event Process Simulation for Hidden Markov Models to Predict Competitor Time-to-Market. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04266

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗