Adjustable Fuzzy Inference for Adaptive Grid Resource Negotiation

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 596)

Abstract

Grids are dynamic, with the resource availability fluctuating over time, and at different rates at each instant. To obtain the resources for tasks execution, each client may negotiate with a resource allocator. If demand on resources is higher than their availability, resources can be exhausted. Therefore, a client needs to anticipate the resource availability in future, but its accurate estimation may not be possible because of the lack or inaccessibility of this information. However, through observing the information conveyed by the resource allocator in negotiation, a client can make estimates as to the speed and direction of the change in availability. In this paper, we describe an adaptive negotiation strategy that allows a client to adjust its tactics to the tendency in resource availability changes during negotiation through a fuzzy control mechanism. Results show that our negotiation strategy can allow a client to successfully obtain more resources.

Keywords

Evaluation function Fuzzy adaptation Grid resource dynamism Outcome prediction Uncertainty interval 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Berman, F., Wolski, R., Casanova, H., Cirne, W., Dail, H., Faerman, M., Figueira, S., Hayes, J., Obertelli, G., Schopf, J., Shao, G., Smallen, S., Spring, N., Su, A., Zagorodnov, D.: Adaptive computing on the grid using AppLeS. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 14(4), 369–382 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borissov, N., Wirström, N.: Q-strategy: a bidding strategy for market-based allocation of grid services. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 744–761. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, S., Weiss, G.: A novel strategy for efficient negotiation in complex environments. In: Timm, I., Guttmann, C. (eds.) Multiagent System Technologies. LNCS, vol. 7598, pp. 68–82. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Downey, A.B.: Using queue time predictions for processor allocation. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L. (eds.) Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing. LNCS, vol. 1291, pp. 35–57. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot. Auton. Syst. 24(3–4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gwak, J., Sim, K.M.: Bayesian learning based negotiation agents for supporting negotiation with incomplete information. Lect. Notes Eng. Comput. Sci. 2188(1), 163–168 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haberland, V., Miles, S., Luck, M.: Adaptive negotiation for resource intensive tasks in Grids. In: Kersting, K., Toussaint, M. (eds.) 6th Starting AI Researchers’ Symposium. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 241, pp. 125–136. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, M., Leung, H.F., Jennings, N.R.: A fuzzy-logic based bidding strategy for autonomous agents in continuous double auctions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 15(6), 1345–1363 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, M., Rogers, A., Luo, X., Jennings, N.R.: Designing a successful trading agent for supply chain management. In: 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2006, pp. 1159–1166. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K., Tykhonov, D.: Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using Bayesian learning. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2008. pp. 331–338. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hou, C.: Predicting agents tactics in automated negotiation. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 127–133 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M.: A roadmap of agent research and development. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 1(1), 7–38 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawaguchi, S., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: Compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiation agents competition (ANAC-10). In: Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C., Oh, J., Varshney, P., Ali, M. (eds.) Modern Approaches in Applied Intelligence. LNCS, vol. 6704, pp. 501–510. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kounev, S., Nou, R., Torres, J.: Autonomic QoS-aware resource management in grid computing using online performance models. In: 2nd International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. ValueTools 2007, vol. 48, pp. 1–10. Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Brussels (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lang, F.: Developing dynamic strategies for multi-issue automated contracting in the agent based commercial grid. In: 5th IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid. CCGrid 2005, vol. 1, pp. 342–349. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, J., Yahyapour, R.: Learning-based negotiation strategies for grid scheduling. In: 6th IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid. CCGrid 2006, vol. 1, pp. 576–583. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mamdani, E.H.: Application of fuzzy logic to approximate reasoning using linguistic synthesis. IEEE Trans. Comput. C-26(12), 1182–1191 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Narayanan, V., Jennings, N.R.: An adaptive bilateral negotiation model for e-commerce settings. In: 7th International IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology, CEC 2005, pp. 34–39. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Narayanan, V., Jennings, N.: Learning to negotiate optimally in non-stationary environments. In: Klusch, M., Rovatsos, M., Payne, T. (eds.) Cooperative Information Agents X. LNCS, vol. 4149, pp. 288–300. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nudd, G.R., Kerbyson, D.J., Papaefstathiou, E., Perry, S.C., Harper, J.S., Wilcox, D.V.: PACE-a toolset for the performance prediction of parallel and distributed systems. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 14(3), 228–251 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pan, L., Luo, X., Meng, X., Miao, C., He, M., Guo, X.: A two-stage win-win multiattribute negotiation model: optimization and concession. Comput. Intell. 29(4), 577–626 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Runkler, T.A., Glesner, M.: DECADE—fast centroid approximation defuzzification for real time fuzzy control applications. In: 1994 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 161–165. ACM, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shen, W., Li, Y., Ghenniwa, H.H., Wang, C.: Adaptive negotiation for agent-based grid computing. In: AAMAS 2002 Workshop on Agentcities: Challenges in Open Agent Environments. pp. 32–36. Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silaghi, G.C., Şerban, L.D., Litan, C.M.: A time-constrained SLA negotiation strategy in competitive computational grids. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 28(8), 1303–1315 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sim, K.M.: From market-driven e-negotiation to market-driven g-negotiation. In: 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service, EEE 2005, pp. 408–413. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sim, K.M., Guo, Y., Shi, B.: BLGAN: Bayesian learning and genetic algorithm for supporting negotiation with incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Part B 39(1), 198–211 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spooner, D., Jarvis, S., Cao, J., Saini, S., Nudd, G.: Local grid scheduling techniques using performance prediction. IEE Proc.—Comput. Digit. Tech. 150(2), 87–96 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: Using Gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In: 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI 2011, vol. 1, pp. 432–438. AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wolski, R., Spring, N.T., Hayes, J.: The network weather service: a distributed resource performance forecasting service for metacomputing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 15(5–6), 757–768 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsKing’s College London StrandLondonUK

Personalised recommendations