Advertisement

Extending Time Management Support for Multi-agent Systems

  • Alexander Helleboogh
  • Tom Holvoet
  • Danny Weyns
  • Yolande Berbers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3415)

Abstract

Time management is essential when simulating multi-agent systems (MASs) as it allows consistent and repeatable simulation runs. So far, time management lacks support to express the timing requirements of a simulation explicitly and at an abstraction level appropriate for MAS developers. Moreover, integrating time management into a MAS requires the developer to alter the design of the MAS. In this paper, we first propose semantic duration models to capture timing requirements that reflect the semantics of MAS activities in an explicit model. Second, we present a time management infrastructure that starts from a semantic duration model description to integrate all time management functionality into a MAS transparently, i.e. without requiring the developer to alter the design of the MAS. We use aspect-oriented programming technology as it allows separation of concerns, a crucial software engineering requirement. As a case, we apply our approach to the Packet-World.

Keywords

Time Management Multiagent System External Activity Semantic Meaning Simulation Platform 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Marietto, M.B., David, N., Sichman, J.S., Coelho, H.: Requirements analysis of agent-based simulation platforms: State of the art and new prospects. In: Sichman, J.S., Bousquet, F., Davidsson, P. (eds.) MABS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2581, pp. 125–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fujimoto, R.: Time management in the high level architecture. Simulation, Special Issue on High Level Architecture 71, 388–400 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandy, K.M., Misra, J.: Asynchronous distributed simulation via a sequence of parallel computations. Communications of the ACM 24, 198–205 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jefferson, D., Sowizral, H.: Fast concurrent simulation using the time warp mechanism. In: Proceedings of the SCS Multiconference on Distributed simulation, pp. 63–69 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helleboogh, A., Holvoet, T., Weyns, D.: Towards time management adaptability in multi-agent systems. In: Kudenko, D., Alonso, E., Kazakov, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the AISB 2004 Fourth Symposium on Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 20–30 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Axtell, R.: Effects of interaction topology and activation regime in several multi-agent systems. In: MABS, pp. 33–48 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Page, S.: On incentives and updating in agent based models. Journal of Computational Economics 10, 67–87 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cornforth, D., Green, D.G., Newth, D., Kirley, M.: Do artificial ants march in step? Ordered asynchronous processes and modularity in biological systems. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on Artificial life, pp. 28–32. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uhrmacher, A., Kullick, B.: Plug and test software agents in virtual environments. In: Winter Simulation Conference - WSC 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Himmelspach, J., Rhl, M., Uhrmacher, A.: Simulation for testing software agents - an exploration based on JAMES. In: Proc. of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson, S.D., Cohen, P.R.: Timed Common Lisp: the duration of deliberation. SIGART Bull. 7, 11–15 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson, S.D.: Simulation of multiple time-pressured agents. In: Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 397–404 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riley, P., Riley, G.: SPADES — a distributed agent simulation environment with software-in-the-loop execution. In: Chick, S., Sánchez, P.J., Ferrin, D., Morrice, D.J. (eds.) Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 817–825 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Menhdhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Akşit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiczales, G., Hilsdale, E., Hugunin, J., Kersten, M., Palm, J., Griswold, W.: Getting started with AspectJ. Commun. ACM 44, 59–65 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weyns, D., Holvoet, T.: The Packet-World as a case to study sociality in multi-agent systems. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2002, Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sauter, J.A., Matthews, R., Parunak, H.V.D.: Evolving adaptive pheromone path planning mechanisms. In: The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Helleboogh
    • 1
  • Tom Holvoet
    • 1
  • Danny Weyns
    • 1
  • Yolande Berbers
    • 1
  1. 1.AgentWise, DistriNet, Department of Computer ScienceK.U.LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations