Recently, big data has received greater attention in diverse research fields, including medicine, science, engineering, management, defense, politics, and others. Such research uses big data to predict target systems, thereby constructing a model of the system in two ways: data modeling and simulation modeling. Data modeling is a method in which a model represents correlation relationships between one set of data and the other set of data. On the other hand, physics-based simulation modeling (or simply simulation modeling) is a more classical, but more powerful, method in which a model represents causal relationships between a set of controlled inputs and corresponding outputs. This paper (i) clarifies the difference between the two modeling approaches, (ii) explains their advantages and limitations and compares each characteristic, and (iii) presents a complementary cooperation modeling approach. Then, we apply the proposed modeling to develop a greenhouse control system in the real world. Finally, we expect that this modeling approach will be an alternative modeling approach in the big data era.
ChristensenCM. The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Brighton, MS: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
6.
JanakiramanVM. Machine learning for identification and optimal control of advanced automotive engines. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Michigan, 2013.
7.
HayterA. Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. 4th ed.Boston, MS: Cengage Learning, 2012.
8.
BeebeeHHitchcockCMenziesP. The Oxford handbook of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
9.
ldrichJ. Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Yule. Stat Sci1995; 10: 364–376.
EvansJR. Business analytics. 2nd ed.London: Pearson, 2015.
12.
DaremaF. Dynamic data driven applications systems: A new paradigm for application simulations and measurements. In: International conference on computational science, Kraków, Poland, 6-9 June 2004, pp.662–669. New York: Springer.
13.
NtaimoLHuXSunY. DEVS-FIRE: towards an integrated simulation environment for surface wildfire spread and containment. Simulation2008; 84: 137–155.
14.
YanXGuFHuX. A dynamic data driven application system for wildfire spread simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference, Austin, TX, USA, 13–16 December 2009, pp.3121–3128. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
15.
MudigondaSOzbayK. Using big data and efficient methods to capture stochasticity for calibration of macroscopic traffic simulation models. In: Symposium celebrating 50 years of traffic flow theory, Portland, Oregon, 11–13 August 2014. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
16.
WilkieDSewallJLinMC. Transforming GIS data into functional road models for large-scale traffic simulation. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph2012; 18: 890–901.
17.
LuHSunZQuW. Big data-driven based real-time traffic flow state identification and prediction. Discrete Dynam Nat Soc2015; 2015: 1–11.
18.
SanyalJNewJ. Simulation and big data challenges in tuning building energy models. In: IEEE workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy system, 20 May 2013. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
19.
SanyalJNewJ. Building simulation modelers - are we big data ready? In: Proceedings of the ASHRAE/IBPSA-USA building simulation conference, Atlanta, GA, 10–12 September 2014, pp.449–456.
20.
TodorovskiLSašo DžeroskiS. Integrating knowledge-driven and data-driven approaches to modeling. Ecol Model2006; 194: 3–13.
21.
SunJHuJLuoD. Combining knowledge and data driven insights for identifying risk factors using electronic health records. In: AMIA annual symposium proceedings, Chicago, IL, USA, November 3–7 2012, pp.901–901. Bethesda, MD: American Medical Informatics Association.
22.
BangaloreSJohnstonM. Balancing data-driven and rule-based approaches in the context of a multimodal conversational system. IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding, 30 Nov - 4 Dec 2003, pp.221–226.
23.
SagaeKLavieA. Combining rule-based and data-driven techniques for grammatical relation extraction in spoken language. In: The 8th international workshop in parsing technologies, Nancy, France, 23–25 April 2003.
24.
NellesO. Nonlinear system identification. New York: Springer, 2000.
25.
ZeiglerBPPraehoferHKimTG. Theory of modeling and simulation. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2001.
26.
KimTGSungCHHongSY. DEVSim++ toolset for defense modeling and simulation and interoperation. J Defense Model Simulat2011; 8: 129–142.
27.
ChoiSHLeeSJKimTG. Multi-fidelity modeling & simulation methodology for simulation speed up. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSIM/PADS conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation, Denver, CO, USA, May 18–21, 2014, pp.139–150. New York: ACM.
28.
BennisNDuplaixJEneaG. Greenhouse climate modelling and robust control. Comput Electron Agric2008; 61: 96–107.
29.
CunhaJB. Greenhouse climate models: an overview. In: The 3rd conference of the European Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture, 5–9 July 2003.
30.
LuanXShiPLiuF. Robust adaptive control for greenhouse climate using neural networks. Int J Robust Nonlin Contr2011; 21: 815–826.
31.
CunhaJBCoutoCRuanoAE. Real-time parameter estimation of dynamic temperature models for greenhouse environmental control. Contr Eng Pract1997; 5: 1473–1481.
32.
BotGPA. Physical modelling of greenhouse climate. In: Proceedings of the IFAC/ISHS workshop, Matsuyama, Japan, 30 September-3 October 1991, pp.7–12. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
33.
LjungL. System identification - theory for the user. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PTR Prentice-Hall, 1987.
34.
KampPGHTimmermanGJ. Computerized environmental control in greenhouses. IPC-Plant, 1996.
35.
ZibotEWangJ. Modeling financial time series with S-PLUS. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
36.
IEEE Standard 1516:2010. IEEE standard for modeling and simulation: high level architecture – HLA framework and rules.
37.
SarjoughianHS. Model composability. In: RossettiM DHillR RJohanssonBDunkinB AIngallsR G (eds.) Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference, 2009, pp.149–158.
