Bug 1469 - lte-phy-error-test fails in ns-3-dev
lte-phy-error-test fails in ns-3-dev
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: ns-3
Classification: Unclassified
Component: lte
pre-release
All All
: P5 normal
Assigned To: Marco Miozzo
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-07-11 09:37 UTC by Tom Henderson
Modified: 2012-10-17 11:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tom Henderson 2012-07-11 09:37:22 UTC
I'm logging this issue to notify people that the regression error in this test due to the random variable checkins of 10 July is a known issue and is planned to be fixed later this week.
Comment 1 Nicola Baldo 2012-07-11 09:47:04 UTC
Assigning to Marco after this email exchange:

> On 07/11/2012 08:13 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>> Some work that I did on the random variables caused some divergence
>> in how the random variables get assigned to streams.
>>
>> One test affected is lte-phy-error-model.  However, it is failing in
>> a way that can be reproduced prior to the checkin.
>>
>> Specifically for ns-3.14 release, using the default RngRun=1:
>>
>> NS_GLOBAL_VALUE="RngRun=1" ./test.py -s lte-phy-error-model -t
>> out.txt (passes)
>>
>> but:
>>
>> NS_GLOBAL_VALUE="RngRun=2" ./test.py -s lte-phy-error-model -t
>> out.txt (fails)
>>
>> The failure states (out.txt):
>>
>>       Message:    Unexpected BER distribution!
>>       Condition: lambda (actual) < np (limit) + m_bernQuantile (tol)
>> && lambda (actual) > np (limit) - m_bernQuantile (tol)
>>       Actual:    632
>>       Limit:     666.65 +- 29
>>       File:      ../src/lte/test/lte-test-phy-error-model.cc
>>       Line:      253
>>
>>
>>
>> and other values of RngRun fail, up to RngRun=11.  However, RngRun=11
>> succeeds.
>>
>> With the new random variable system just checked in, the default
>> RngRun=1 fails, but RngRun=11 passes.
>>
>> I'm wondering whether the tolerance that you chose for fitting the
>> simulated data to the expected cure is too tight?



On 07/11/2012 11:54 AM, Marco Miozzo wrote:
> I've already verified that is a problem of confidence interval, I
> decided to move to 99% CI, which implies a quantile of 39 and therefore
> the test will not fail. Tomorrow, I'll synch the lena-dev repo with
> latest ns3-dev, I'll solve the bug and then I'll update the ns3-dev repo
> with the lena one polished by the test error.
>
Comment 2 Marco Miozzo 2012-07-11 09:56:48 UTC
Add further investigation I decided for the usage of the 99.9 % CI, since the quantiles were still too tight.
Comment 3 Marco Miozzo 2012-07-11 10:41:51 UTC
Solved with 99.9% of CI, the reason behind incrementing the CI is the quantization of the tables used by the error model
Comment 4 Marco Miozzo 2012-07-11 11:03:42 UTC
pushed in ns3-dev changeset:   8890:311667416cd2