Soft Computing

, Volume 15, Issue 12, pp 2375–2387 | Cite as

Connecting Community-Grids by supporting job negotiation with coevolutionary Fuzzy-Systems

  • Alexander Fölling
  • Christian Grimme
  • Joachim Lepping
  • Alexander Papaspyrou


We utilize a competitive coevolutionary algorithm (CA) in order to optimize the parameter set of a Fuzzy-System for job negotiation between Community-Grids. In a Community-Grid, users are submitting jobs to their local High Performance Computing (HPC) sites over time. Now, we assume that Community-Grids are interconnected such that the exchange of jobs becomes possible: Each Community strives for minimizing the response time for their own members by trying to distribute workload to other communities in the Grid environment. For negotiation purpose, a Fuzzy-System is used to steer each site’s decisions whether to distribute or accept workload in a beneficial, yet egoistic direction. In such a system, it is essential that communities can only benefit if the workload is equitably (not necessarily equally) portioned among all participants. That is, if one community egoistically refuses to execute foreign jobs regularly, other HPC sites suffer from overloading. This, on the long run, deteriorates the opportunity to utilize them for job delegation. Thus, the egoistic community will degrade its own average performance. This scenario is particularly suited for the application of a competitive CA: the Fuzzy-Systems of the participating communities are modeled as species, which evolve in different populations while having to compete within the commonly shared ecosystem. Using real workload traces and Grid setups, we show that the opportunistic cooperation leads to significant improvements for both each community and the overall system.


Grid computing Competitive coevolution Online-scheduling Performance evaluation Pittsburgh-approach 


  1. Akbarzadeh MR, Mosavat I, Abbasi S (2003) Friendship modeling for cooperative co-evolutionary fuzzy systems: a hybrid GA-GP algorithm. In: 22nd International conference of the North American fuzzy information processing society, pp 61–66Google Scholar
  2. Casillas J, Cordón O, Herrera F, Guervós JJM (2002) Cooperative coevolution for learning fuzzy rule-based systems. In: Selected papers from the 5th European conference on artificial evolution. Springer, London, pp. 311–322Google Scholar
  3. Cordon O, del Jesus M-J, Herrera F (1999) A proposal on reasoning methods in fuzzy rule-based classification systems. Int J Approx Reason 20(1):21–45Google Scholar
  4. Cordon O, Gomide FAC, Herrera F, Hoffmann F, Magdalena L (2004) Ten years of genetic fuzzy systems: current framework and new trends. Fuzzy Sets Syst 141(1):5–31MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delgado MR, Von Zuben F, Gomide F (2004) Coevolutionary genetic fuzzy systems: a hierarchical collaborative approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst 141(1):89–106MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donato JM, Barbieri E (1995) Mathematical representation of fuzzy membership functions. In: Proceedings of the 27th southeastern symposium on system theory. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 290Google Scholar
  7. Ernemann C, Hamscher V, Yahyapour R (2004) Benefits of global grid computing for job scheduling. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE/ACM international workshop on grid computing (GRID’04). IEEE Computer Society, pp 374–379Google Scholar
  8. Foelling A, Grimme C, Lepping J, Papaspyrou A (2009) Co-evolving fuzzy rule sets for job exchange in computational grids. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems. IEEE Press, NJ, pp 1683–1688Google Scholar
  9. Franke C, Hoffmann F, Lepping J, Schwiegelshohn U (2008) Development of scheduling strategies with genetic fuzzy systems. Appl Soft Comput 8(1):706–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimme C, Langhammer T, Papaspyrou A, Schintke F (2007a) Negotiation-based choreography of data-intensive applications in the C3Grid Project. In: Proceedings of the German e-Science Conference (GES), Baden-Baden, Germany. Max-Planck Society (online)Google Scholar
  11. Grimme C, Lepping J, Papaspyrou A (2007b) Exploring the behavior of building blocks for multi-objective variation operator design using predator–prey dynamics. In: Thierens D et al. (eds) Prococeedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 2007). ACM Press, London, pp 805–812Google Scholar
  12. Herrera F (2005) Genetic fuzzy systems: status, critical considerations and future directions. Int J Comput Intell Res 1(1):5–31Google Scholar
  13. Herrera F (2008) Genetic fuzzy systems: taxonomy, current research trends and prospects. Evol Intell 1(1):27–46MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillis WD (1990) Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Phys D 42(1–3):228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ishibuchi H, Nakashima T, Morisawa T (1999) Voting in fuzzy rule-based systems for pattern classification problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 103(2):223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juang C-F, Lin J-Y, Lin C-T (2000) Genetic reinforcement learning through symbiotic evolution for fuzzy controller design. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30(2):290–302MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nejad SK, Najafi-Ardabili A, Akbarzadeh-T MR, Moeinzadeh M-H (2008) A co-evolutionary fuzzy system for real-time signal pre-processing. in: Asia international conference on modelling and simulation, pp 620–624Google Scholar
  18. Olsson B (2001) Co-evolutionary search in asymmetric spaces. Inf Sci 133(3–4):103–125zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paredis J (1995) Coevolutionary computation. Artif Life 2(4):355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paredis J (2000) Evolutionary computation 2: advanced algorithms and operators, chapter coevolutionary Algorithms. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, pp 224–238Google Scholar
  21. Peña-Reyes CA, Sipper M (2001) Fuzzy CoCo: a cooperative-coevolutionary approach to fuzzy modeling. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 9(5):727–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Potter MA, De Jong KA (2000) Cooperative coevolution: An architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents. Evol Comp 8(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosin CD, Belew RK (1997) New methods for competitive coevolution. Evol Comput 5(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwefel H-P (1995) Evolution and optimum seeking. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwiegelshohn U, Yahyapour R (1998) Analysis of first-come-first-serve parallel job scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 9th SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA98). SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 629–638Google Scholar
  26. Schwiegelshohn U, Yahyapour R (2000) Fairness in parallel job scheduling. J Sched 3(5):297–320MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smarr L (2004) Grids in context. In: The grid: blueprint for a future computing infrastructure, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  28. Smith SF (1980) A learning system based on genetic adaptive algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  29. Walter I, Gomide F (2009) Multiagent coevolutionary genetic fuzzy system to develop bidding strategies in electricity markets: computational economics to assess mechanism design. Evol Intell 2:53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Fölling
    • 1
  • Christian Grimme
    • 1
  • Joachim Lepping
    • 1
  • Alexander Papaspyrou
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics Research InstituteTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations