Decentralized service discovery and selection in Internet of Things applications based on artificial potential fields

  • Elli Rapti
  • Anthony KarageorgosEmail author
  • Catherine Houstis
  • Elias Houstis
Original Research Paper


The Internet of Things (IoT) vision involves a future Internet integrated with real-world objects that can commonly offer their functionality trough services. In such pervasive environments of IoT networks, locating and invoking suitable services is quite challenging and traditional service discovery and selection approaches have been proven inadequate. In this paper, taking inspiration from natural metaphors, a decentralized service discovery and selection model is proposed. The model is based on artificial potential fields (APFs) which are formed upon each user service request and become active at points where services can be provided. Such points are termed as service provision nodes (SPNs). The strength of each APF depends on the percentage of requested services that can be provided by the respective SPN, as well as on SPN service load and availability with the aim to balance service load among SPNs. Service discovery and selection is then driven by artificial forces applied among user service requests and SPNs. Simulation results indicate that the proposed approach maintains satisfactory performance and scalability as the number of SPNs in an IoT network increase and efficient load balancing of the requested services among the SPNs in comparison with other approaches.


Decentralized service discovery Service selection Software agents Artificial potential fields Internet of Things 



This research has been supported by GSRT (General Secretariat for Research and Technology), Program: “National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–13”, Act: “Support for SMEs Groups for Research and Technological Development”, Project title: “e-Furniture: Dynamic Networking of Furniture and Wood Product Manufacturing Enterprises”.


  1. 1.
    Zambonelli F, Viroli M (2011) A survey on nature-inspired metaphors for pervasive service ecosystems. Int J Pervasive Comput Commun 7(3):186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christin D, Reinhardt A, Mogre PS, Steinmetz R (2009) Wireless sensor networks and the internet of things: selected challenges. In: Proceedings of the 8th GI/ITG KuVS Fachgespräch Drahtlose sensornetze, pp 31–34Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teixeira T, Hachem S, Issarny V, Georgantas N (2011) Service oriented middleware for the internet of things: a perspective. In: Abramowicz W, Llorente I, Surridge M, Zisman A, Vayssiere J (eds) Towards a service-based internet. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 220–229Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ma HD (2011) Internet of things: objectives and scientific challenges. J Comput Sci Technol 26(6):919–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atzori L, Iera A, Morabito G (2010) The internet of things: a survey. Comput Netw 54(15):2787–2805CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uckelmann D, Harrison M, Michahelles F (2011) An architectural approach towards the future internet of things. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed T, Tripathi A, Srivastava A (2014) Rain4service: an approach towards decentralized web service composition. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE, pp 267–274Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spiess P, Karnouskos S, Guinard D, Savio D, Baecker O, De Souza LMS, Trifa V (2009) Soa-based integration of the internet of things in enterprise services. In: IEEE international conference on web services, 2009. ICWS 2009. IEEE, pp 968–975Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Csorba MJ, Meling H, Heegaard PE (2011) A bio-inspired method for distributed deployment of services. New Gener Comput 29(2):185–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan NN, Gaaloul W, Tata S (2012) A recommender system based on historical usage data for web service discovery. SOCA 6(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen H, Li S (2010) Src: a service registry on cloud providing behavior-aware and qos-aware service discovery. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA). IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clement L, Hately A, von Riegen C, Rogers T et al (2004) Uddi version 3.0. 2, uddi spec technical committee draft. OASIS open standards consortiumGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadopoulos P, Tianfield H, Moffat D, Barrie P (2013) Decentralized multi-agent service composition. Multiagent Grid Syst 9(1):45–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Masri E, Mahmoud QH (2006) A context-aware mobile service discovery and selection mechanism using artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on electronic commerce: the new e-commerce: innovations for conquering current barriers, obstacles and limitations to conducting successful business on the internet. ACM, pp 594–598Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guinard D, Trifa V, Karnouskos S, Spiess P, Savio D (2010) Interacting with the soa-based internet of things: discovery, query, selection, and on-demand provisioning of web services. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 3(3):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    He Q, Yan J, Yang Y, Kowalczyk R, Jin H (2013) A decentralized service discovery approach on peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(1):64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sapkota B, Roman D, Kruk SR, Fensel D (2006) Distributed web service discovery architecture. In: Null. IEEE, p 136Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li Y, Zou F, Wu Z, Ma F (2004) Pwsd: a scalable web service discovery architecture based on peer-to-peer overlay network. In: Jeffrey Xu Yu, Xuemin Lin, Hongjun Lu, Yanchun Zhang (eds) Advanced web technologies and applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 291–300Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    He Q, Yan J, Yang Y, Kowalczyk R, Jin H (2008) Chord4s: a p2p-based decentralised service discovery approach. In: IEEE international conference on services computing, 2008. SCC’08, vol 1. IEEE, pp 221–228Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bicchi A, Marigo A, Pappas G, Pardini M, Parlangeli G, Tomlin C, Sastry S (1998) Decentralized airtraffic management systems: performance and fault tolerance. In: Proceedings of IFAC international workshop on motion control, Grenoble. Citeseer, pp 279–284Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Kaashoek MF, Balakrishnan H (2001) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 31(4):149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gharzouli M, Boufaida M (2011) Pm4sws: a p2p model for semantic web services discovery and composition. J Adv Inf Technol 2(1):15–26Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahmed T, Mrissa M, Srivastava A (2014) Magel: a magneto-electric effect-inspired approach for web service composition. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS). IEEE, pp 455–462Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mamei M, Zambonelli F (2006) Field-based coordination for pervasive multiagent systems. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lenders V, May M, Plattner B (2005) Service discovery in mobile ad hoc networks: a field theoretic approach. Pervasive Mobile Comput 1(3):343–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adeli H, Tabrizi MHN, Mazloomian A, Hajipour E, Jahed M (2011) Path planning for mobile robots using iterative artificial potential field method. Int J Comput Sci Issues 8(4):28–32Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaradat MAK, Garibeh MH, Feilat EA (2012) Autonomous mobile robot dynamic motion planning using hybrid fuzzy potential field. Soft Comput 16(1):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masoud AA (2007) Decentralized self-organizing potential field-based control for individually motivated mobile agents in a cluttered environment: a vector-harmonic potential field approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 37(3):372–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang HF, Qian JS, Sun YJ (2011) Virtual electrostatic field based multi-sink routing algorithm in WSN. J China Univ Min Technol 40(2):321–326Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu YS, Ren FY (2009) Potential field based multi-strategy routing protocol in WSN. ZTE Commun 15(6):32–36Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jiang H, Sun Y, Sun R, Chen W, Ma S, Gao J (2014) A distributed energy optimized routing using virtual potential field in wireless sensor networks. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 2014:10Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kalantari M, Shayman M (2006) Design optimization of multi-sink sensor networks by analogy to electrostatic theory. In: IEEE wireless communications and networking conference, 2006. WCNC 2006, vol 1. IEEE, pp 431–438Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruchti J, Senkbeil R, Carroll J, Dickinson J, Holt J, Biaz S (2011) Uav collision avoidance using artificial potential fields. Tech. rep. CSSE11-03, Computer Science and Software Engineering Department, Auburn UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rapti E, Karageorgos A, Gerogiannis VC (2015) Decentralised service composition using potential fields in internet of things applications. Proc Comput Sci 52:700–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gu X, Nahrstedt K, Yu B (2004) Spidernet: an integrated peer-to-peer service composition framework. In: 2004. Proceedings 13th IEEE international symposium on high performance distributed computing. IEEE, pp 110–119Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chakraborty D, Perich F, Joshi A, Finin T, Yesha Y (2003) A reactive service composition architecture for pervasive computing environments. In: Cambyse GO (ed) Mobile and wireless communications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yu T, Zhang Y, Lin K-J (2007) Efficient algorithms for web services selection with end-to-end qos constraints. ACM Trans Web (TWEB) 1(1):6Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Luo J-Z, Zhou J-Y, Wu Z-A (2009) An adaptive algorithm for qos-aware service composition in grid environments. SOCA 3(3):217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Al-Oqily I, Karmouch A (2011) A decentralized self-organizing service composition for autonomic entities. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst (TAAS) 6(1):7Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sun microsystems, jini architecture specification version 2.0 (2003).
  41. 41.
    Waldo J (1998) Javaspaces specification 1.0. Sun Microsyst 29 Technical report, p 30Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Universal Plug (2003) Play (upnp) forum. Microsoft CorporationGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Veizades J, Guttman E, Perkins CE, Kaplan S (1997) Service location protocol. Internet Eng Task Force: RFC 2165, p 72.
  44. 44.
    Czerwinski SE, Zhao BY, Hodes TD, Joseph AD, Katz RH (1999) An architecture for a secure service discovery service. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on mobile computing and networking. ACM, pp 24–35Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network, vol 31. ACM, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Rachid G (ed) Middleware 2001. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 329–350Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khatib O (1986) Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. Int J Robot Res 5(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim DH, Wang H, Shin S (2006) Decentralized control of autonomous swarm systems using artificial potential functions: analytical design guidelines. J Intell Rob Syst 45(4):369–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vallée M, Ramparany F, Vercouter L (2005) A multi-agent system for dynamic service composition in ambient intelligence environments. Citeseer, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Puliafito A, Cucinotta A, Minnolo AL, Zaia A (2010) Making the internet of things a reality: the wherex solution. In: Daniel G, Antonio I, Giacomo M, Luigi A (eds) The internet of things. Springer, New York, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Luke S, Cioffi-Revilla C, Panait L, Sullivan K, Balan G (2005) Mason: a multiagent simulation environment. Simulation 81(7):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elli Rapti
    • 1
  • Anthony Karageorgos
    • 2
    Email author
  • Catherine Houstis
    • 3
  • Elias Houstis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Research and Technology Thessaly, CERTHVólosGreece
  2. 2.Applied Informatics LaboratoryTechnological Educational Institute of ThessalyKarditsaGreece
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of ThessalyVólosGreece

Personalised recommendations