Advertisement

Community-Based Load Balancing for Massively Multi-Agent Systems

  • Naoki Miyata
  • Toru Ishida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5043)

Abstract

Recently, large-scale distributed multiagent systems consisting of one million of agents have been developed. When agents are distributed among multiple servers, both the computational and interaction cost of servers must be considered when optimizing the performance of the entire system. Multiagent systems reflect the structure of social communities and artificial networks such as the Internet. Since the networks possess characteristics common to the ‘small world’ phenomenon, networks of agents on the systems can be considered as small worlds. In that case, communities, which are the sets of agents that frequently interact with each other, exist in the network. Most previous works evaluate agents one by one to select the most appropriate agent to be moved to a different server. If the networks of agents are highly clustered, previous works divide the communities when moving agents. Since agents in the same community often interact with each other, this division of communities increases the interaction cost among servers. We propose community-based load balancing (CLB), which evaluates the communities to select the most appropriate set of agents to be moved. We conducted simulations to evaluate our proposed method according to the network of agents. Our simulations show that when the clustering coefficient is close to 1.0, the interaction cost with CLB can be approximately 30% lower than that with previous works.

Keywords

mobile agents scalability and performance issues: robustness fault tolerance and dependability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gasser, L., Kakugawa, K.: Mace3j: fast flexible distributed simulation of large, large-grain multi-agent systems. In: AAMAS 2002: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 745–752. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ishida, T., Gasser, L., Nakashima, H. (eds.): MMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3446. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koyanagi, T., Kobayashi, Y., Miyagi, S., Yamamoto, G.: Agent server for a location-aware personalized notification service. In: [2], pp. 224–238Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balmer, M., Cetin, N., Nagel, K., Raney, B.: Towards truly agent-based traffic and mobility simulations. In: AAMAS 2004: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 60–67. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamamoto, G., Tai, H., Mizuta, H.: A platform for massive agent-based simulation and its evaluation. In: AAMAS 2007: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 900–902. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmad, I., Ghafoor, A.: Semi-distributed load balancing for massively parallel multicomputer systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(10), 987–1004 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684), 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chia, T.H., Kannapan, S.: Strategically mobile agents. In: Rothermel, K., Popescu-Zeletin, R. (eds.) MA 1997. LNCS, vol. 1219, pp. 149–161. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawamura, T., Joseph, S., Ohsuya, A., Honiden, S.: Quantitative evaluation of pairwise interactions between agents. In: Kotz, D., Mattern, F. (eds.) MA 2000, ASA/MA 2000, and ASA 2000. LNCS, vol. 1882, pp. 192–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlegel, T., Braun, P., Kowalczyk, R.: Towards autonomous mobile agents with emergent migration behaviour. In: AAMAS 2006: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 585–592. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endo, H., Noto, M., Toyoshima, H.: Quantitative evaluation of communication traffic of mobile agents in distributed constraint satisfaction model. In: SMC (4), pp. 3852–3857. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow, K.P., Kwok, Y.K.: On load balancing for distributed multiagent computing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 13(8), 787–801 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang, M.W., Agha, G.: Agent framework services to reduce agent communication overhead in large-scale agent-based simulations. In: Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory (October, 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishida, T., Gasser, L., Yokoo, M.: Organization self-design of distributed production systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 4(2), 123–134 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoki Miyata
    • 1
  • Toru Ishida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social InformaticsKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations