Lower Bounds for Shoreline Searching With 2 or More Robots

Searching for a line on the plane with $n$ unit speed robots is a classic online problem that dates back to the 50's, and for which competitive ratio upper bounds are known for every $n\geq 1$. In this work we improve the best lower bound known for $n=2$ robots from 1.5993 to 3. Moreover we prove that the competitive ratio is at least $\sqrt{3}$ for $n=3$ robots, and at least $1/\cos(\pi/n)$ for $n\geq 4$ robots. Our lower bounds match the best upper bounds known for $n\geq 4$, hence resolving these cases. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first lower bounds proven for the cases $n\geq 3$ of this several decades old problem.Comment: This is an updated version of the paper with the same title which will appear in the proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2019) Neuchatel, Switzerland, July 17-19, 201

A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7Multi-agent planning (MAP) approaches are typically oriented at solving loosely coupled problems, being ineffective to deal with more complex, strongly related problems. In most cases, agents work under complete information, building complete knowledge bases. The present article introduces a general-purpose MAP framework designed to tackle problems of any coupling levels under incomplete information. Agents in our MAP model are partially unaware of the information managed by the rest of agents and share only the critical information that affects other agents, thus maintaining a distributed vision of the task. Agents solve MAP tasks through the adoption of an iterative refinement planning procedure that uses single-agent planning technology. In particular, agents will devise refinements through the partial-order planning paradigm, a flexible framework to build refinement plans leaving unsolved details that will be gradually completed by means of new refinements. Our proposal is supported with the implementation of a fully operative MAP system and we show various experiments when running our system over different types of MAP problems, from the most strongly related to the most loosely coupled.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051.Torreño Lerma, A.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O. (2014). A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38:141-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7S14117838Argente E, Botti V, Carrascosa C, Giret A, Julian V, Rebollo M (2011) An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the THOMAS approach. Knowl Inf Syst 29(2):379–403Barrett A, Weld DS (1994) Partial-order planning: evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artif Intell 67(1):71–112Belesiotis A, Rovatsos M, Rahwan I (2010) Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 765–772Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2001) JADE: a FIPA2000 compliant agent development environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AAMAS). ACM, pp 216–217Blum A, Furst ML (1997) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif Intell 90(1–2):281–300Boutilier C, Brafman R (2001) Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. J Artif Intell Res 14(105):136Brafman R, Domshlak C (2008) From one to many: planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 28–35Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiag Syst 19(3):297–331Coles A, Coles A, Fox M, Long D (2010) Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 42–49Coles A, Fox M, Long D, Smith A (2008) Teaching forward-chaining planning with JavaFF. In: Colloquium on AI education, 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceCox J, Durfee E, Bartold T (2005) A distributed framework for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 821–827de Weerdt M, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiag Grid Syst 5(4):345–355Decker K, Lesser VR (1992) Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int J Coop Inf Syst 2(2):319–346desJardins M, Durfee E, Ortiz C, Wolverton M (1999) A survey of research in distributed continual planning. AI Mag 20(4):13–22Doshi P (2007) On the role of interactive epistemology in multiagent planning. In: Artificial intelligence and, pattern recognition. pp 208–213Dréo J, Savéant P, Schoenauer M, Vidal V (2011) Divide-and-evolve: the marriage of descartes and darwin. In: Proceedings of the 7th international planning competition (IPC). Freiburg, GermanyDurfee EH (2001) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Multi-agents systems and applications: selected tutorial papers from the 9th ECCAI advanced course (ACAI) and agentLink’s third European agent systems summer school (EASSS), vol LNAI 2086. Springer, pp 118–149Durfee EH, Lesser V (1991) Partial global planning: a coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Special Issue Distrib Sens Netw 21(5):1167–1183Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1996) Deriving consensus in multiagent systems. Artif Intell 87(1–2):21–74Fikes R, Nilsson N (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Fogués R, Alberola J, Such J, Espinosa A, Garcia-Fornes A (2010) Towards dynamic agent interaction support in open multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on artificial intelligence research and development: proceedings of the 13th international conference of the Catalan association for artificial intelligence’. IOS Press, pp 89–98Gerevini A, Long D (2006) Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL3. In: ICAPS workshop on planning with preferences and soft constraints, vol 6. Citeseer, pp 46–53Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL-the Planning Domain Definition Language. In: AIPS-98 planning committeeGmytrasiewicz P, Doshi P (2005) A framework for sequential planning in multi-agent settings. J Artif Intell Res 24:49–79Haslum P, Jonsson P (1999) Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on, planning (ECP). pp 308–318Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26(1):191–246Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast planning generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302Jonsson A, Rovatsos M (2011) Scaling up multiagent planning: a best-response approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 114–121Kambhampati S (1997) Refinement planning as a unifying framework for plan synthesis. AI Mag 18(2):67–97Kaminka GA, Pynadath DV, Tambe M (2002) Monitoring teams by overhearing: a multi-agent plan-recognition approach. J Artif Intell Res 17:83–135Kone M, Shimazu A, Nakajima T (2000) The state of the art in agent communication languages. Knowl Inf Syst 2(3):259–284Kovacs DL (2011) Complete BNF description of PDDL3.1. Technical reportKraus S (1997) Beliefs, time and incomplete information in multiple encounter negotiations among autonomous agents. Ann Math Artif Intell 20(1–4):111–159Kumar A, Zilberstein S, Toussaint M (2011) Scalable multiagent planning using probabilistic inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)’. Barcelona, Spain, pp 2140–2146Kvarnström J. (2011) Planning for loosely coupled agents using partial order forward-chaining. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 138–145Lesser V, Decker K, Wagner T, Carver N, Garvey A, Horling B, Neiman D, Podorozhny R, Prasad M, Raja A et al (2004) Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1):87–143Lipovetzky N, Geffner H (2011) Searching for plans with carefully designed probes. In: Proceedings of the 21th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS)Micacchi C, Cohen R (2008) A framework for simulating real-time multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 17(2):135–166Nguyen N, Katarzyniak R (2009) Actions and social interactions in multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2):133–136Nguyen X, Kambhampati S (2001) Reviving partial order planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 459–464Nissim R, Brafman R, Domshlak C (2010) A general, fully distributed multi-agent planning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). pp 1323–1330Pajares S, Onaindia E (2012) Defeasible argumentation for multi-agent planning in ambient intelligence applications. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) pp 509–516Paolucci M, Shehory O, Sycara K, Kalp D, Pannu A (2000) A planning component for RETSINA agents. Intelligent Agents VI. Agent Theories Architectures, and Languages pp 147–161Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3):261Penberthy J, Weld D (1992) UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 103–114Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177Sycara K, Pannu A (1998) The RETSINA multiagent system (video session): towards integrating planning, execution and information gathering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents (Agents). ACM, pp 350–351Tambe M (1997) Towards flexible teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124Tang Y, Norman T, Parsons S (2010) A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. Argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp 60–78Tonino H, Bos A, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2002) Plan coordination by revision in collective agent based systems. Artif Intell 142(2):121–145Van Der Krogt R, De Weerdt M (2005), Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 161–170Weld D (1994) An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Mag 15(4):27Weld D (1999) Recent advances in AI planning. AI Mag 20(2):93–123Wilkins D, Myers K (1998) A multiagent planning architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence planning systems (AIPS), pp 154–162Wu F, Zilberstein S, Chen X (2011) Online planning for multi-agent systems with bounded communication. Artif Intell 175(2):487–511Younes H, Simmons R (2003) VHPOP: versatile heuristic partial order planner. J Artif Intell Res 20: 405–430Zhang J, Nguyen X, Kowalczyk R (2007) Graph-based multi-agent replanning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS

A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems

[EN] Elasticity is a goal of cloud computing. An elastic system should manage in an autonomic way its resources, being adaptive to dynamic workloads, allocating additional resources when workload is increased and deallocating resources when workload decreases. PaaS providers should manage resources of customer applications with the aim of converting those applications into elastic services. This survey identifies the requirements that such management imposes on a PaaS provider: autonomy, scalability, adaptivity, SLA awareness, composability and upgradeability. This document delves into the variety of mechanisms that have been proposed to deal with all those requirements. Although there are multiple approaches to address those concerns, providers main goal is maximisation of profits. This compels providers to look for balancing two opposed goals: maximising quality of service and minimising costs. Because of this, there are still several aspects that deserve additional research for finding optimal adaptability strategies. Those open issues are also discussed.This work has been partially supported by EU FEDER and Spanish MINECO under research Grant TIN2012-37719-C03-01.Muñoz-Escoí, FD.; Bernabeu Aubán, JM. (2017). A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems. Computing. 99(7):617-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-016-0507-8S617656997Ajmani S (2004) Automatic software upgrades for distributed systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USAAjmani S, Liskov B, Shrira L (2006) Modular software upgrades for distributed systems. In: 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Nantes, France, pp 452–476Alhamad M, Dillon TS, Chang E (2010) Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing. In: 4th International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), Dubai, pp 606–610Almeida S, Leitão J, Rodrigues LET (2013) ChainReaction: a causal+ consistent datastore based on chain replication. In: 8th EuroSys Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 85–98Araujo J, Matos R, Maciel PRM, Matias R (2011) Software aging issues on the Eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Anchorage, Alaska, USA, pp 1411–1416Arief LB, Speirs NA (2000) A UML tool for an automatic generation of simulation programs. In: Worshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 71–76Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz RH, Konwinski A, Lee G, Patterson DA, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58Bailis P, Ghodsi A (2013) Eventual consistency today: limitations, extensions, and beyond. Commun ACM 56(5):55–63Bailis P, Ghodsi A, Hellerstein JM, Stoica I (2013) Bolt-on causal consistency. In: Intnl Conf Mgmnt Data (SIGMOD). NY, USA, New York, pp 761–772Balsamo S, Marco AD, Inverardi P, Simeoni M (2004) Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):295–310Barham P, Dragovic B, Fraser K, Hand S, Harris TL, Ho A, Neugebauer R, Pratt I, Warfield A (2003) Xen and the art of virtualization. In: 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), Bolton Landing, NY, USA, pp 164–177Bennani MN, Menascé DA (2005) Resource allocation for autonomic data centers using analytic performance models. In: 2nd Intnl Conf Auton Comput (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 229–240Birman KP (1996) Building Secure and Reliable Network Applications. Manning Publications Co., ISBN 1-884777-29-5Bloom T (1983) Dynamic module replacement in a distributed programming system. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USABloom T, Day M (1993) Reconfiguration and module replacement in Argus: theory and practice. Softw Eng J 8(2):102–108Caballer M, Segrelles Quilis JD, Moltó G, Blanquer I (2015) A platform to deploy customized scientific virtual infrastructures on the cloud. Concurr Comput Pract E 27(16):4318–4329Calatrava A, Romero E, Moltó G, Caballer M, Alonso JM (2016) Self-managed cost-efficient virtual elastic clusters on hybrid cloud infrastructures. Future Gener Comp Syst 61:13–25Calcavecchia NM, Caprarescu BA, Nitto ED, Dubois DJ, Petcu D (2012) DEPAS: a decentralized probabilistic algorithm for auto-scaling. Computing 94(8–10):701–730Casalicchio E, Silvestri L (2013) Mechanisms for SLA provisioning in cloud-based service providers. Comput Netw 57(3):795–810Casalicchio E, Menascé DA, Aldhalaan A (2013) Autonomic resource provisioning in cloud systems with availability goals. In: ACM Cloud Autonomic Computing Conference (CAC), FL, USA, Miami, pp 1–10Chang F, Dean J, Ghemawat S, Hsieh WC, Wallach DA, Burrows M, Chandra T, Fikes A, Gruber RE (2008) Bigtable: a distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Trans Comput Syst 26(2):4Copil G, Trihinas D, Truong HL, Moldovan D, Pallis G, Dustdar S, Dikaiakos MD (2014) ADVISE—A framework for evaluating cloud service elasticity behavior. In: 12th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC), France, Paris, pp 275–290Cotroneo D, Natella R, Pietrantuono R, Russo S (2014) A survey of software aging and rejuvenation studies. ACM J Emerg Technol 10(1):8:1–8:34Coutinho EF, de Carvalho Sousa FR, Rego PAL, Gomes DG, de Souza JN (2015) Elasticity in cloud computing: a survey. Ann Telecommun 70(15):289–309Dawoud W, Takouna I, Meinel C (2011) Elastic VM for cloud resources provisioning optimization. In: 1st International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications (ACC), Kochi, India, pp 431–445de Juan-Marín R, Decker H, Armendáriz-Íñigo JE, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-EscoíFD (2015) Scalability approaches for causal multicast: a survey. Computing (in press)de Miguel M, Lambolais T, Hannouz M, Betgé-Brezetz S, Piekarec S (2000) UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models. In: Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 83–88Demers AJ, Greene DH, Hauser C, Irish W, Larson J, Shenker S, Sturgis HE, Swinehart DC, Terry DB (1987) Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance. In: 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–12Dustdar S, Guo Y, Satzger B, Truong HL (2011) Principles of elastic processes. IEEE Internet Comput 15(5):66–71Emeakaroha VC, Brandic I, Maurer M, Dustdar S (2013) Cloud resource provisioning and SLA enforcement via LoM2HiS framework. Concurr Comput Pract E 25(10):1462–1481Felter W, Ferreira A, Rajamony R, Rubio J (2015) An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and Linux containers. In: IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 171–172Fox A, Brewer EA (1999) Harvest, yield and scalable tolerant systems. In: 7th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), Rio Rico, Arizona, USA, pp 174–178Galante G, De Bona LCE (2012) A survey on cloud computing elasticity. In: 5th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Chicago, IL, USA, pp 263–270Galante G, De Bona LCE, Mury AR, Schulze B, Righi RR (2016) An analysis of public clouds elasticity in the execution of scientific applications: a survey. J Grid Comput 14(2):193–216Gambi A, Hummer W, Truong HL, Dustdar S (2013) Testing elastic computing systems. IEEE Internet Comput 17(6):76–82Garg S, van Moorsel APA, Vaidyanathan K, Trivedi KS (1998) A methodology for detection and estimation of software aging. In: 9th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Paderborn, Germany, pp 283–292Gey F, Landuyt DV, Joosen W (2015) Middleware for customizable multi-staged dynamic upgrades of multi-tenant SaaS applications. In: 8th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Limassol, Cyprus, pp 102–111Gilbert S, Lynch NA (2002) Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2):51–59Gong Z, Gu X, Wilkes J (2010) PRESS: PRedictive Elastic reSource Scaling for cloud systems. In: 6th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Niagara Falls, Canada, pp 9–16Grozev N, Buyya R (2014) Inter-cloud architectures and application brokering: taxonomy and survey. Softw Pract Exp 44(3):369–390Hammer M (2009) How to touch a running system. reconfiguration of stateful components. PhD thesis, Facultät für Mathematik, Informatik und Statistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, GermanyHasan MZ, Magana E, Clemm A, Tucker L, Gudreddi SLD (2012) Integrated and autonomic cloud resource scaling. In: IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), Maui, HI, USA, pp 1327–1334Herbst NR, Kounev S, Reussner R (2013) Elasticity in cloud computing: What it is, and what it is not. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), San Jose, CA, USA, pp 23–27Hermanns H, Herzog U, Katoen J (2002) Process algebra for performance evaluation. Theor Comput Sci 274(1–2):43–87Horn P (2001) Autonomic computing: IBM’s perspective on the state of information technology. Tech. rep. IBM PressHuebscher MC, McCann JA (2008) A survey of autonomic computing—degrees, models, and applications. ACM Comput Surv 40(3):7Hwang J, Zeng S, Wu F, Wood T (2013) A component-based performance comparison of four hypervisors. In: International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 269–276IBM (2006) An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. White paper, 4th edIosup A, Ostermann S, Yigitbasi N, Prodan R, Fahringer T, Epema DHJ (2011) Performance analysis of cloud computing services for many-tasks scientific computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22(6):931–945Ivanovic D, Carro M, Hermenegildo MV (2013) A sharing-based approach to supporting adaptation in service compositions. Computing 95(6):453–492Jiang Y, Perng C, Li T, Chang RN (2011) ASAP: A self-adaptive prediction system for instant cloud resource demand provisioning. In: 11th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1104–1109Johnson PR, Thomas RH (1975) The maintenance of duplicate databases. RFC 677, Network Working Group, Internet Engineering Task ForceKephart JO, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput 36(1):41–50Kiviti A, Laor D, Costa G, Enberg P, Har’El N, Marti D, Zolotarov V (2014) OSv—Optimizing the operating system for virtual machines. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 61–72Knauth T, Fetzer C (2011) Scaling non-elastic applications using virtual machines. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 468–475Knauth T, Fetzer C (2014) DreamServer: truly on-demand cloud services. In: International Conference on Systems and Storage (SYSTOR), Haifa, Israel, pp 1–11Kramer J, Magee J (1990) The evolving philosophers problem: dynamic change management. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16(11):1293–1306Lakshman A, Malik P (2010) Cassandra: a decentralized structured storage system. Oper Syst Rev 44(2):35–40Lang W, Shankar S, Patel JM, Kalhan A (2014) Towards multi-tenant performance SLOs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 26(6):1447–1463Langner F, Andrzejak A (2013) Detecting software aging in a cloud computing framework by comparing development versions. In: IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 896–899Lazowska ED, Zahorjan J, Graham GS, Sevcik KC (1984) Quantitative system performance. Computer system analysis using queueing network models. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverLeitner P, Michlmayr A, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S (2010) Monitoring, prediction and prevention of SLA violations in composite services. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Florida, USA, Miami, pp 369–376Li W (2011) Evaluating the impacts of dynamic reconfiguration on the QoS of running systems. J Syst Softw 84(12):2123–2138Lim HC, Babu S, Chase JS, Parekh SS (2009) Automated control in cloud computing: challenges and opportunities. In: 1st ACM Workshop Automated Control Datacenters Clouds (ACDC), Barcelona, Spain, pp 13–18Liu J, Zhou J, Buyya R (2015) Software rejuvenation based fault tolerance scheme for cloud applications. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), New York City, NY, USA, pp 1115–1118Lorido-Botran T, Miguel-Alonso J, Lozano JA (2014) A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. J Grid Comput 12(4):559–592Massie M, Li B, Nicholes B, Vuksan V, Alexander R, Buchbinder J, Costa F, Dean A, Josephsen D, Phaal P, Pocock D (2012) Monitoring with Ganglia. O’Reilly Media, Tracking Dynamic Host and Application Metrics at Scale. ISBN 978-1-4493-2970-9Matias R Jr, Andrzejak A, Machida F, Elias D, Trivedi KS (2014) A systematic differential analysis for fast and robust detection of software aging. In: 33rd IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Nara, Japan, pp 311–320Medina V, García JM (2014) A survey of migration mechanisms of virtual machines. ACM Comput Surv 46(3):30Mell P, Grance T (2011) The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-145Menascé DA, Bennani MN (2006) Autonomic virtualized environments. In: International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems (ICAS), Silicon Valley, California, USA, p 28Menascé DA, Ngo P (2009) Understanding cloud computing: Experimentation and capacity planning. In: 35th International Computer Measurement Group Conference, Dallas, TX, USAMenascé DA, Ruan H, Gomaa H (2007) QoS management in service-oriented architectures. Perform Eval 64(7–8):646–663Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2010) Dynamic switching of total-order broadcast protocols. In: International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 457–463Mohamed M (2014) Generic monitoring and reconfiguration for service-based applications in the cloud. PhD thesis, Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne, FranceMohamed M, Amziani M, Belaïd D, Tata S, Melliti T (2015) An autonomic approach to manage elasticity of business processes in the cloud. Future Gener Comp Sys 50(C):49–61Mohd Yusoh ZI (2013) Composite SaaS resource management in cloud computing using evolutionary computation. PhD thesis, Sc Eng Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AustraliaMontero RS, Moreno-Vozmediano R, Llorente IM (2011) An elasticity model for high throughput computing clusters. J Parallel Distrib Comput 71(6):750–757Morabito R, Kjällman J, Komu M (2015) Hypervisors vs. lightweight virtualization: a performance comparison. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), Tempe, AZ, USA, pp 386–393Najjar A, Serpaggi X, Gravier C, Boissier O (2014) Survey of elasticity management solutions in cloud computing. In: Mahmood Z (ed) Continued rise of the cloud: advances and trends in cloud computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–263Naskos A, Gounaris A, Sioutas S (2015) Cloud elasticity: a survey. In: 1st International Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Cloud Computing (ALGOCLOUD), Patras, Greece, pp 151–167Neamtiu I, Dumitras T (2011) Cloud software upgrades: challenges and opportunities. In: IEEE International Workshop on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems (MESOCA), Williamsburg, VA, USA, pp 1–10Neuman BC (1994) Scale in distributed systems. In: Singhal M, Casavant TL (eds) Readings in Distributed computing systems. IEEE-CS Press, Los Alamitos, pp 463–489Padala P, Shin KG, Zhu X, Uysal M, Wang Z, Singhal S, Merchant A, Salem K (2007) Adaptive control of virtualized resources in utility computing environments. In: EuroSys Conference Lisbon, Portugal, pp 289–302Parnas DL (1994) Software aging. In: 6th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Sorrento, Italy, pp 279–287Parzen E (1960) A survey on time series analysis. Tech. rep., n. 37, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAPascual-Miret L, González de Mendívil JR, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2015) Widening CAP consistency. Tech. rep., IUMTI-SIDI-2015/003, Univ. Politècnica de València, Valencia, SpainPopek GJ, Goldberg RP (1974) Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun ACM 17(7):412–421Potter S, Nieh J (2005) AutoPod: Unscheduled system updates with zero data loss. In: 2nd International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 367–368Rajagopalan S (2014) System support for elasticity and high availability. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaReinecke P, Wolter K, van Moorsel APA (2010) Evaluating the adaptivity of computing systems. Perform Eval 67(8):676–693Rolia JA, Sevcik KC (1995) The method of layers. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(8):689–700Roy N, Dubey A, Gokhale AS (2011) Efficient autoscaling in the cloud using predictive models for workload forecasting. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 500–507Ruiz-Fuertes MI, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2009) Performance evaluation of a metaprotocol for database replication adaptability. In: 28th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Niagara Falls, New York, USA, pp 32–38Saito Y, Shapiro M (2005) Optimistic replication. ACM Comput Surv 37(1):42–81Seifzadeh H, Abolhassani H, Moshkenani MS (2013) A survey of dynamic software updating. J Softw Evol Process 25(5):535–568Sharma U, Shenoy PJ, Sahu S, Shaikh A (2011) A cost-aware elasticity provisioning system for the cloud. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp 559–570Shen M, Kshemkalyani AD, Hsu TY (2015) Causal consistency for geo-replicated cloud storage under partial replication. In: International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) Workshop, Hyderabad, India, pp 509–518Shen Z, Subbiah S, Gu X, Wilkes J (2011) CloudScale: elastic resource scaling for multi-tenant cloud systems. In: ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC), Cascais, Portugal, p 5Simoes R, Kamienski CA (2014) Elasticity management in private and hybrid clouds. In: 7th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Anchorage, AK, USA, pp 793–800Singh S, Chana I (2015) QoS-aware autonomic resource management in cloud computing: a systematic review. ACM Comput Surv 48(3):42:1–42:46Smith CU (1980) The prediction and evaluation of the performance of software from extended design specifications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, USASmith CU, Williams LG (2003) Software performance engineering. In: Lavagno L, Martin G, Selic B (eds) UML for real. Design of embedded real-time systems, chap 16. Springer, Berlin, pp 343–365Solarski M (2004) Dynamic upgrade of distributed software components. PhD thesis, Fakultät IV Elektronik und Informatik, Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin, GermanySoltesz S, Pötzl H, Fiuczynski ME, Bavier AC, Peterson LL (2007) Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors. In: European Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 275–287Soules CAN, Appavoo J, Hui K, Wisniewski RW, Silva DD, Ganger GR, Krieger O, Stumm M, Auslander MA, Ostrowski M, Rosenburg BS, Xenidis J (2003) System support for online reconfiguration. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference. San Antonio, Texas, USA, pp 141–154Sridharan S (2012) A performance comparison of hypervisors for cloud computing. Master Thesis (paper 269), School of Computing, University of North Florida, USAStonebraker M (1986) The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng Bull 9(1):4–9Sun D, Guimarans D, Fekete A, Gramoli V, Zhu L (2015) Multi-objective optimisation of rolling upgrade allowing for failures in clouds. In: 34th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 68–73Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction. The MIT Press, CambridgeToosi AN, Calheiros RN, Buyya R (2014) Interconnected cloud computing environments: challenges, taxonomy, and survey. ACM Comput Surv 47(1):7:1–7:47Vaquero González LM, Rodero-Merino L, Cáceres J, Lindner MA (2009) A break in the clouds: towards a cloud definition. Comput Commun Rev 39(1):50–55Varrette S, Guzek M, Plugaru V, Besseron X, Bouvry P (2013) HPC performance and energy-efficiency of Xen, KVM and VMware hypervisors. In: 25th International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing (SBAC-PAD). Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil, pp 89–96Vasic N, Novakovic DM, Miucin S, Kostic D, Bianchini R (2012) DejaVu: accelerating resource allocation in virtualized environments. In: 17th nternational Conference on Architectural Support for Programing Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), London, UK, pp 423–436Vaughan-Nichols SJ (2006) New approach to virtualization is a lightweight. IEEE Comput 39(11):12–14Vogels W (2009) Eventually consistent. Commun ACM 52(1):40–44Wada H, Suzuki J, Yamano Y, Oba K (2011) Evolutionary deployment optimization for service-oriented clouds. Softw Pract Exp 41(5):469–493Whitaker A, Cox RS, Shaw M, Gribble SD (2005) Rethinking the design of virtual machine monitors. IEEE Comput 38(5):57–62Wishart DMG (1969) A survey of control theory. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G 132(3):293–319Yataghene L, Amziani M, Ioualalen M, Tata S (2014) A queuing model for business processes elasticity evaluation. In: International Workshop on Advanced Information Systems for Enterprises (IWAISE), Tunis, Tunisia, pp 22–28Zawirski M, Preguiça N, Duarte S, Bieniusa A, Balegas V, Shapiro M (2015) Write fast, read in th

Adding an ontology to a standardized QoS-based MAS middleware

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02481-8_12In a Multi-Agent system, middleware is one of the components used to isolate control and communications. The use of standards in the implementation of an intelligent distributed system is always advantageous. This paper presents a middleware that provides support to a multi-agent system. Middleware is based on the standard Data Distribution Services (DDS), proposed by Object Management Group (OGM). Middleware organizes information by tree based ontology and provides a set of quality of service policies that agents can use to increase efficiency. DDS provides a set of quality of service policy. Joining quality of service policy and the ontology allows getting many advantages, among others the possibility of to conceal some details of the communications system to agents, the correct location of the agents in the distributed system, or the monitoring agents in terms of quality of service. For modeling the middleware architecture it has used UML class diagrams. As an example it has presented the implementation of a mobile robot navigation system through agents that model behaviors.The MAS architecture described in this article is a part of the coordinated project SIDIRELI: Distributed Systems with Limited Resources. Control Kernel and Coordination. Education and Science Department, Spanish Government. CICYT: MICINN: DPI2008-06737-C02-01/02.Poza-Lujan, J.; Posadas-Yagüe, J.; Simó Ten, JE. (2009). Adding an ontology to a standardized QoS-based MAS middleware. En Distributed Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Bioinformatics, Soft Computing, and Ambient Assisted Living. Springer. 83-90. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02481-8_12S8390Coulouris, G., Dollimore, J., Kindberg, T.: Distributed systems, concepts and design, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2001)Hapner, M., Sharma, R., Fialli, J., Stout, K.: JMS specification, vol. 1.1. Sun Microsystems Inc., Santa Clara (2002)Lewis, R.: Advanced Messaging Applications with MSMQ and MQ Series. Que Publishing (1999)OMG. Real-Time Corba Specification version 1.1. Document formal /02-08-02 (2002)FIPA. Specfication. Part 2, Agent Communication Language. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (1997)Vogel, A., Kerherve, B., von Bochmann, G., Gecsei, J.: Distributed Multimedia and QoS: A Survey. IEEE Multimedia 2(2), 10–19 (1995)Smith, B.: Beyond concepts, or: Ontology as reality representation. In: Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2004), pp. 73–84 (2004)Gruber, T.R.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 43(5-6), 907–928 (1995)Pardo-Castellote, G.: OMG Data-Distribution Service: architectural overview. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, Providence, USA, vols. 19-22, pp. 200–206 (2003)Object Management Group (OMG). Unified Modeling Language Specification, v1.4.2, ISO/IEC 19501 (2001)Poza, J.L., Posadas, J.I., Simó, J.E.: Distributed agent specification to an Intelligent Control Architecture. In: 6th International Workshop on Practical Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems, Salamanca (2007)Poza, J.L., Posadas, J.l., Simó, J.E.: QoS-based middleware archi-tecture for distributed control systems. In: International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Salamanca (2008

VLSI ORIENTED COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOME APPLICATIONS

International Telemetering Conference Proceedings / October 28-31, 1985 / Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, NevadaThe paper surveys the particular problems, arising in the architectural design of computing systems, realized on VLSI chips. Particular difficulties due to limited on-chip density and power dissipation are discussed. The difficulties of the realization of on-chip communications between various subsystems (between themselves and between other offchip systems) are stressed. A number of design principles for the realization of on-chip communication paths is presented. Two design philosophies for the instruction set design in a VLSI environment are brought up: (a) The large microcoded instruction set, (b) The Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) approach, based on the Streamlined Instruction Set Design. A survey of the author’s research group work in this area is presented. This includes the ZT-1 single chip microcomputer, RISC computing space studies, applications to a distributed traffic control and a la rge scale, reconfigurable communications system.International Foundation for TelemeteringProceedings from the International Telemetering Conference are made available by the International Foundation for Telemetering and the University of Arizona Libraries. Visit http://www.telemetry.org/index.php/contact-us if you have questions about items in this collection

Multi-level Autonomic Business Process Management

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_14Nowadays, business processes are becoming increasingly complex and heterogeneous. Autonomic Computing principles can reduce this complexity by autonomously managing the software systems and the running processes, their states and evolution. Business Processes that are able to be self-managed are referred to as Autonomic Business Processes (ABP). However, a key challenge is to keep the models of such ABP understandable and expressive in increasingly complex scenarios. This paper discusses the design aspects of an autonomic business process management system able to self-manage processes based on operational adaptation. The goal is to minimize human intervention during the process definition and execution phases. This novel approach, named MABUP, provides four well-defined levels of abstraction to express business and operational knowledge and to guide the management activity; namely, Organizational Level, Technological Level, Operational Level and Service Level. A real example is used to illustrate our proposal.Research supported by CAPES, CNPQ and Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.Oliveira, K.; Castro, J.; España Cubillo, S.; Pastor López, O. (2013). Multi-level Autonomic Business Process Management. En Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Springer. 184-198. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38484-4_14S184198España, S., González, A., Pastor, Ó.: Communication Analysis: A Requirements Engineering Method for Information Systems. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 530–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Ganek, A.G., Corbi, T.A.: The dawning of the autonomic computing era. IBM Systems Journal 42(1), 5–18 (2003)Gonzalez, A., et al.: Unity criteria for Business Process Modelling. In: Third International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2009, pp. 155–164 (2009)Greenwood, D., Rimassa, G.: Autonomic Goal-Oriented Business Process Management. Management, 43 (2007)Haupt, T., et al.: Autonomic execution of computational workflows. In: 2011 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, FedCSIS, pp. 965–972 (2011)Kephart, J.O., Chess, D.M.: The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE (2003)Lee, K., et al.: Workflow adaptation as an autonomic computing problem. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science, New York, NY, USA, pp. 29–34 (2007)Mosincat, A., Binder, W.: Transparent Runtime Adaptability for BPEL Processes. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 241–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Oliveira, K., et al.: Towards Autonomic Business Process Models. In: International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge, SEKE 2012, San Francisco, California, USA (2012)Rahman, M., et al.: A taxonomy and survey on autonomic management of applications in grid computing environments. Concurr. Comput.: Pract. Exper. 23(16), 1990–2019 (2011)Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: Review and effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Rodrigues Nt., J.A., Monteiro Jr., P.C.L., de O. Sampaio, J., de Souza, J.M., Zimbrão, G.: Autonomic Business Processes Scalable Architecture. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 78–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Strohmaier, M., Yu, E.: Towards autonomic workflow management systems. ACM Press (2006)Terres, L.D., et al.: Selection of Business Process for Autonomic Automation. In: 2010 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 237–246 (October 2010)Tretola, G., Zimeo, E.: Autonomic internet-scale workflows. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Monitoring, Adaptation and Beyond, New York, NY, USA, pp. 48–56 (2010)Vedam, H., Venkatasubramanian, V.: A wavelet theory-based adaptive trend analysis system for process monitoring and diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 1997 American Control Conference, vol. 1, pp. 309–313 (June 1997)Wang, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: Self-Repair through Reconfiguration: A Requirements Engineering Approach. In: 2009 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 257–268 (November 2009)Yu, T., Lin, K.: Adaptive algorithms for finding replacement services in autonomic distributed business processes. In: Proceedings Autonomous Decentralized Systems, ISADS 2005, pp. 427–434 (2005

Flooding with Absorption: An Efficient Protocol for Heterogeneous Bandits over Complex Networks

Multi-armed bandits are extensively used to model sequential decision-making, making them ubiquitous in many real-life applications such as online recommender systems and wireless networking. We consider a multi-agent setting where each agent solves their own bandit instance endowed with a different set of arms. Their goal is to minimize their group regret while collaborating via some communication protocol over a given network. Previous literature on this problem only considered arm heterogeneity and networked agents separately. In this work, we introduce a setting that encompasses both features. For this novel setting, we first provide a rigorous regret analysis for a standard flooding protocol combined with the classic UCB policy. Then, to mitigate the issue of high communication costs incurred by flooding in complex networks, we propose a new protocol called Flooding with Absorption (FwA). We provide a theoretical analysis of the resulting regret bound and discuss the advantages of using FwA over flooding. Lastly, we experimentally verify on various scenarios, including dynamic networks, that FwA leads to significantly lower communication costs despite minimal regret performance loss compared to other network protocols.Comment: 25 pages, 6 figures. Accepted to the 27th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2023) - Best Student Pape