Abstract
In this article, we present a collective decision-making framework inspired by biological swarms and capable of supporting the emergence of a consensus within a population of agents in the absence of environment-mediated communication (stigmergy). Instead, amplification is the result of the variation of a confidence index, stored in individual memory and providing each agent with a statistical estimate of the current popularity of its preferred choice within the whole population. We explore the fundamental properties of our framework using a combination of analytical and numerical methods. We then use Monte Carlo simulation to investigate its applicability to host selection in the presence of multiple alternatives, a problem found in application migration scenarios. The advantages of self-organization and the use of statistically predictive methods in this context are also discussed.
- Ame, J., Halloy, J., Rivault, C., Detrain, C., and Denebourg, J. 2006. Collegial decision making based on social amplification leads to optimal group formation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5835--5840.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ardagna, D., Trubian, M., and Zhang, L. 2007. Sla based resource allocation policies in autonomic environments. J. Paral. Distrib. Comput. 67, 259--270. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Beckers, R., Deneubourg, J., Goss, S., and Pasteels, J. 1990. Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insectes Sociaux 37, 258--267.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bergerud, A. 2000. Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Chapter Caribou.Google Scholar
- Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Denebourg, J., Aron, S., and Camazine, S. 1997. Self-Organization in social insects. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 12, 188--193.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Chow, K. and Kwok, Y. 2002. On load balancing for distributed multi-agent computing. IEEE Trans. Paral. Distrib. Syst. 13, 787--801. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Conradt, L. and Roper, T. 2005. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 20, 449--456.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Couzin, I., Krause, J., Franks, N., and Levin, S. 2005. Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433, 513--516.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Csorba, M., Meling, H., Heegaard, P., and P., H. 2009. Foraging for Better Deployment of Replicated Service Components. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5523, Springer. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dorigo, M. and Stuetzle, T. 2004. Ant Colony Optimization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dyer, F. and T. D., S. 1994. Colony migration in the tropical honey beeapis dorsata f. (hymenoptera: Apidae). Insectes Sociaux 41, 129--140.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., and Paterson, M. S. 1985. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM 32, 2, 374--382. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fu, C. and Xu, C. 2005. Service migration in distributed virtual machines for adaptive grid computing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing. IEEE Computer Society, 358--365. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gueron, S. and Levin, S. 1993. Self-Organization of front patterns in large wildebeest herds. J. Theor. Biol. 165, 541--552.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gupta, S. and Srimani, P. 2003. Adaptive core selection and migration method for multicast routing in mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Paral. Distrib. Syst. 14, 27--38. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Handl, J. and Meyer, B. 2002. Improved ant-based clustering and sorting in a document retrieval interface. In Proceedings of Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Vol. 7. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Heimfarth, T. and Janacik, P. 2006. Ant based heuristic for os service distribution on ad-hoc networks. Biol. Inspired Coop. Comput. 75--84.Google Scholar
- Heusse, M., Guerin, S., Snyers, D., and Kuntz, P. 1998. Adaptive agent-driven routing and load balancing in communication networks. Adv. Complex Syst. 1, 234--257.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Holdo, R., Holt, R., and Fryxell, J. 2009. Opposing rainfall and plant nutritional gradients best explain the wildebeest migration in the serengeti. Amer. Natural. 173, 431--445.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R., and Shi, Y. 2001. Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Koshi, K., Hiltunen, M., and Jung, G. 2009. Performance aware regeneration in virtualized multitier applications. In Proceedings of the DSN09 Workshop on Proactive Failure Avoidance, Recovery and Maintenance (PFARM). IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- Lindauer, M. 1951. Bienentänze in der schwarmtraube. Naturwissenschaften 38, 509--513.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lindauer, M. 1953. Bienentänze in der schwarmtraube ii. Naturwissenschaften 40, 379--385.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lindauer, M. 1955. Schwarmbienen auf wohnungssuche. Zeitschrift Fuer Vergleichende Physiologie 37, 263--324.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mallon, E., Pratt, S., and Franks, N. 2001. Individual and collective decision-making during nest selection by the ant leptothorax albipennis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 352--359.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Messig, M. and Goscinski, A. 2007. Autonomic system management in mobile grid environments. In Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Symposium on Grid Computing and e-Research. Vol. 68. 49--58. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Montresor, A., Meling, H., and Babaoglu, O. 2002. Messor: Load-balancing through a swarm of autonomous agents. In Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing, 125--137. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Musunoori, S. B. and Horn, G. 2007. Application service placement in stochastic grid environments using learning and ant-based methods. Multiagent Grid Syst. 3, 1, 19--41. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Parker, C. A. and Zhang, H. 2009. Cooperative decision-making in decentralized multiple-robot systems: the best-of-n problem. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 14, 2, 240--251.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Pease, M., Shostak, R., and Lamport, L. 1980. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM 27, 2, 228--234. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Peysakhov, M., Dugan, C., Jodi, P. J., and Regli, W. 2006. Quorum sensing on mobile ad-hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'06). 1104--1106. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pratt, S. C., Sumpter, D. J., Mallon, E. B., and Franks, N. R. 2005. An agent-based model of collective nest choice by the ant temnothorax albipennis. Animal Behav. 70, 5, 1023--1036.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Saffre, F., Mailleux, A., and Deneubourg, J. L. 2000. Exploratory recruitment plasticity in a social spider (anelosimus eximius). J. Theor. Biol. 205, 37--46.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Saffre, F., Tateson, R., Halloy, J., Shackleton, M., and Deneubourg, J. L. 2009. Aggregation dynamics in overlay networks and their implications for self-organised distributed applications. Comput. J. 52, 4, 397--412. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Schaerf, A., Shoham, Y., and Tennenholtz, M. 1995. Adaptive load balancing: A study in multi-agent learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2, 475--500. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Seeley, T. 2003. Consensus building during nest-site selection in honey bee swarms: The expiration of dissent. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53, 417--424.Google Scholar
- Seeley, T. and Buhrman, C. 1999. Group decision making in swarms of honey bees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45, 19--31.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Seeley, T., Camazine, S., and Sneyd, J. 1991. Collective decision-making in honey bees: How colonies choose among nectar sources. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28, 227--290.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Seeley, T. and Morse, R. 1978. Nest site selection by the honey bee apis mellifera. Insectes Sociaux 25, 323--337.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Seeley, T. and Visscher, P. 2004. Group decision making in nest-site selection by honey bees. Apidologie 35, 101--116.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shen, K., Tang, H., and Yang, T. 2002. A flexible qos framework for cluster-based network services. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference.Google Scholar
- Sumpter, D. and Pratt, S. 2009. Quorum responses and consensus decision making. Philosoph. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 364, 743--753.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Wolf, J. and Yu, P. 2001. On balancing the load in a clustered web farm. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 1, 231--261. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Host selection through collective decision
Recommendations
Collective decision with 100 Kilobots: speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems
Achieving fast and accurate collective decisions with a large number of simple agents without relying on a central planning unit or on global communication is essential for developing complex collective behaviors. In this paper, we investigate the speed ...
Coalitions of malicious intelligent agents
In this paper, we propose a model of pro-social and antisocial behaviour within and between agent coalitions. We analyse benevolent, selfish, and malevolent agents as generic types of pro-social and antisocial agents. We show that social attitudes must ...
Concepts, challenges, and prospects on Multiagent Data Warehousing (MADWH) and Multiagent Data Mining (MADM)
Multiagent Data Warehousing (MADWH) and Multiagent Data Mining (MADM) presents a multidimensional agent-oriented approach for brain modelling and decision making based on the hypothesis that a brain system consists of a society of semiautonomous neural ...






Comments