Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 130–150 | Cite as

Negotiation strategy for continuous long-term tasks in a grid environment

  • Valeriia Haberland
  • Simon Miles
  • Michael Luck
Article

Abstract

Nowadays, much research is concerned with execution of long-term continuous tasks, which produce data in real time, e.g. monitoring applications. These tasks can be run for months or years and they are usually resource intensive in terms of the large amounts of data which is processed per time unit. A Grid can potentially provide the amount of resources necessary to execute these tasks, but it might prove to be impossible or non-beneficial for a Grid to allocate resources for such long durations as these resources can be also requested by other clients or might join a Grid only for some periods of time. To resolve these differences, a client and a Grid Resource Allocator negotiate, and a client has to agree for a shorter execution period at the end of which it needs to negotiate again. In this paper, we discuss in detail a decision-making mechanism for a client as part of its negotiation strategy, which aims to increase the duration of execution periods and to decrease the duration of interruptions. This new strategy, ConTask, has been tested on a realistic Grid resource simulator, and it demonstrates better utilities than our strategy which has not been specifically designed for continuous tasks under various conditions.

Keywords

Automated negotiation Continuous task Grid resources 

References

  1. 1.
    Adabi, S., Movaghar, A. M., Rahmani, A., & Beigy, H. (2013). Negotiation strategies considering market, time and behavior functions for resource allocation in computational grid. The Journal of Supercomputing, 66(3), 1350–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmadi, M., & Stone, P. (2006). A multi-robot system for continuous area sweeping tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 1724–1729).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akioka, S., & Muraoka, Y. (2004). Extended forecast of CPU and network load on computational Grid. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international symposium on cluster computing and the grid, CCGrid 2004 (pp. 765–772).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrzejak, A., & Ceyran, M. (2005). Characterizing and predicting resource demand by periodicity mining. The Journal of Network and Systems Management, 13(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., & Lin, R. (2012). The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In T. Ito, M. Zhang, V. Robu, S. Fatima, & T. Matsuo (Eds.), New Trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations (Vol. 383, pp. 113–135). Studies in computational intelligence Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bahrammirzaee, A., Chohra, A., & Madani, K. (2013). An adaptive approach for decision making tactics in automated negotiation. Applied Intelligence, 39(3), 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berman, F., Wolski, R., Casanova, H., Cirne, W., Dail, H., Faerman, M., et al. (2003). Adaptive computing on the grid using apples. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 14(4), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castro, P. M., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., Matos, H. A., & Novais, A. Q. (2004). Simple continuous-time formulation for short-term scheduling of batch and continuous processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 43(1), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, L., Reddy, K., & Agrawal, G. (2004). GATES: a grid-based middleware for processing distributed data streams. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international symposium on high performance distributed computing (pp. 192–201).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3–4), 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foster, I., Kesselman, C., & Tuecke, S. (2001). The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 15, 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghanem, M., Guo, Y., Hassard, J., Osmond, M., & Richards, M. (2004). Sensor grids for air pollution monitoring. In Proceeding of the 3rd UK e-Science all hands meeting.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haberland, V., Miles, S., & Luck, M. (2012). Adaptive negotiation for resource intensive tasks in Grids. In K. Kersting, M. Toussaint (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th starting AI researchers’ symposium of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 241, pp. 125–136).New York: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haberland, V., Miles, S., & Luck, M. (2014). Negotiation to execute continuous long-term tasks. In T. Schaub, G. Friedrich, B. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st European conference on artificial intelligence of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 263, pp. 1019–1020). New York: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haberland, V., Miles, S., & Luck, M. (2015). Adjustable fuzzy inference for adaptive grid resource negotiation. In K. Fujita, T. Ito, M. Zhang, V. Robu (Eds.), Next Frontier in agent-based complex automated negotiation, studies of computational intelligence (Vol. 596, pp. 37–57). Japan: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hindriks, K., Jonker, C. M., Kraus, S., Lin, R., & Tykhonov, D. (2009). Genius: Negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS ’09 (Vol. 2, pp. 1397–1398), Richland, SC.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hindriks, K., Jonker, C. M., & Tykhonov, D. (2009). The benefits of opponent models in negotiation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technologies, 2, 439–444.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hou, C. (2004). Predicting agents tactics in automated negotiation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, 2004, 127–133.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iosup, A., Li, H., Jan, M., Anoep, S., Dumitrescu, C., Wolters, L., et al. (2008). The grid workloads archive. The Journal of Future Generation Computer System, 24(7), 672–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kondo, D., Taufer, M., Brooks, C., Casanova, H., & Chien, A. (2004). Characterizing and evaluating desktop grids: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 18th international parallel and distributed processing symposium.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lang, F. (2005). Developing dynamic strategies for multi-issue automated contracting in the agent based commercial grid. In Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on cluster computing and the grid, 1, 342–349.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mamdani, E. H. (1977). Application of fuzzy logic to approximate reasoning using linguistic synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C–26(12), 1182–1191.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Narayanan, V., & Jennings, N.R. (2005). An adaptive bilateral negotiation model for e-commerce settings. In Proceedings of the 7th international IEEE conference on E-commerce technology (pp. 34–39).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nudd, G. R., Kerbyson, D. J., Papaefstathiou, E., Perry, S. C., Harper, J. S., & Wilcox, D. V. (2000). PACE—a toolset for the performance prediction of parallel and distributed systems. High Performance Computing Applications, 14(3), 228–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ren, F., Zhang, M., & Sim, K. M. (2009). Adaptive conceding strategies for automated trading agents in dynamic, open markets. Decision Support Systems, 46(3), 704–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–109.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silaghi, G. C., Şerban, L. D., & Litan, C. M. (2012). A time-constrained SLA negotiation strategy in competitive computational grids. Future Generation Computer Systems, 28(8), 1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sim, K. M. (2005). Equilibria, prudent compromises, and the “waiting” game. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 35(4), 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sim, K. M. (2005). From market-driven e-negotiation to market-driven g-negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on e-technology, e-commerce and e-service (pp. 408–413). New York: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sim, K. M. (2008). Evolving fuzzy rules for relaxed-criteria negotiation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 38(6), 1486–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sim, K. M., & Ng, K. F. (2006). A relaxed-criteria bargaining protocol for grid resource management. In Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international symposium on cluster computing and the grid (Vol. 2, p. 5).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sim, K. M., & Wang, S. Y. (2004). Flexible negotiation agent with relaxed decision rules. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 34(3), 1602–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spooner, D., Jarvis, S., Cao, J., Saini, S., & Nudd, G. (2003). Local grid scheduling techniques using performance prediction. IEEE Proceedings—Computers and Digital Techniques, 150(2), 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolski, R. (2003). Experiences with predicting resource performance on-line in computational grid settings. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 30(4), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolski, R., Spring, N. T., & Hayes, J. (1999). The network weather service: A distributed resource performance forecasting service for metacomputing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 15(5–6), 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yuan, Y., Wu, Y., Yang, G., & Zheng, W. (2008). Adaptive hybrid model for long term load prediction in computational grid. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international symposium on cluster computing and the grid, CCGRID ’08 (pp. 340–347).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations