Dynamic and Adaptive Replication for Large-Scale Reliable Multi-agent Systems

  • Zahia Guessoum
  • Jean-Pierre Briot
  • Olivier Marin
  • Athmane Hamel
  • Pierre Sens
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2603)


In order to make large-scale multi-agent systems reliable, we propose an adaptive application of replication strategies. Critical agents are replicated to avoid failures. As criticality of agents may evolve during the course of computation and problem solving, we need to dynamically and automatically adapt the number of replicas of agents, in order to maximize their reliability and availability based on available resources. We are studying an approach and mechanisms for evaluating the criticality of a given agent (based on application-level semantic information, e.g. messages intention, and also system-level statistical information, e.g., communication load) and for deciding what strategy to apply (e.g., active or passive replication) and how to parameterize it (e.g., number of replicas).


Fault Tolerance Mobile Agent Dynamic Replication Replication Strategy Agent Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. A. Avouris and L. Gasser. Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis, chapter Object-Oriented Concurrent Programming and Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 81–108. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Belkouch, M. Bui, and L. Chen. Self-stabilizing quorum systems for reliable document access in fully distributed information systems. Studies in Informatics and Control, 7(4):311–326, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T.D. Chandra and S. Toueg. Unreliable failure detector for asynchronous distributed systems. In 10 th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 325–340, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson. Cloning for intelligent adaptive information agents. In ATAL’97, LNAI, pages 63–75. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, S. Haddad, and H. Mazouzi. Protocol engineering for multiagent interactions. In MAAMAW’99, number 1647 in LNAI, pages 128–135. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Fedoruk and R. Deters. Improving fault-tolerance by replicating agents. In AAMAS2002, Boulogna, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Finin, R. Fritzson, D. McKay, and R. McEntire. KQML as an agent communication language. In Third international conference on information and knowledge management. ACM Press, November 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FIPA. Specification. part 2, agent communication language, foundation for intelligent physical agents, geneva, switzerland., 1997.
  9. 9.
    R. Guerraoui, B. Garbinato, and K. Mazouni. Lessons from designing and implementing garf. In Proceedings Objects Oriented Parallel and Distributed Computations, volume LNCS 791, pages 238–256, Nottingham, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Guerraoui and A. Schiper. Software-based replication for fault tolerance. IEEE Computer, 30(4):68–74, April 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z. Guessoum and J.-P. Briot. From active objects to autonomous agents. IEEE Concurrency, 7(3):68–76, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Hagg. A sentinel approach to fault handling in multi-agent systems. In C. Zhang and D. Lukose, editors, Multi-Agent Systems, Methodologies and Applications, number 1286 in LNCS, pages 190–195. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Jennings M. Wooldridge and D. Kinny. The methodology gaia for agent-oriented analysis and design. AI, 10(2):1–27, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Marin, P. Sens, J.-P. Briot, and Z. Guessoum. Towards adaptive fault-tolerance for distributed multi-agent systems. In ERSADS’2001, pages 195–201, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Golm. Metaxa and the future of reflection. In OOPSLA-Workshop on Reflective Programming in C++ and Java, pages 238–256. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    James J. Odell, H. Van Dyke Parunak, and Bernhard Bauer. Representing agent interaction protocols in uml. In Paolo Ciancarini and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, number 1957 in LNCS, pages 121–140. Springer Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. De Assis Silva and R. Popescu-Zeletin. An approach for providing mobile agent fault tolerance. In S. N. Maheshwari, editor, Second International Workshop on Mobile Agents, number 1477 in LNCS, pages 14–25. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Silva, V. Batista, and J. Silva. Fault-tolerant execution of mobile agents. In International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pages 135–143, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. van Renesse, K. Birman, and S. Maffeis. Horus: A flexible group communication system. CACM, 39(4):76–83, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Woods. Transition network grammar for natural language analysis. Communication of Association of Computing Machinery, 10(13):591–606, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zahia Guessoum
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Briot
    • 1
  • Olivier Marin
    • 1
  • Athmane Hamel
    • 1
  • Pierre Sens
    • 1
  1. 1.OASIS and SRC teams, LIP6Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations