Towards real-time agreements

In this paper, we deal with the problem of real-time coordination with the more general approach of reaching real-time agreements in MAS. Concretely, this work proposes a real-time argumentation framework in an attempt to provide agents with the ability of engaging in argumentative dialogues and come with a solution for their underlying agreement process within a bounded period of time. The framework has been implemented and evaluated in the domain of a customer support application. Concretely, we consider a society of agents that act on behalf of a group of technicians that must solve problems in a Technology Management Centre (TMC) within a bounded time. This centre controls every process implicated in the provision of technological and customer support services to private or public organisations by means of a call centre. The contract signed between the TCM and the customer establishes penalties if the specified time is exceeded. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.This work is supported by the Spanish Government grants TIN2009-13839-C03-01 [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PRO-METEO 2008/051].Navarro Llácer, M.; Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2013). Towards real-time agreements. Expert Systems with Applications. 40(10):3906-3917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.087S39063917401

A USER’S COGNITIVE WORKLOAD PERSPECTIVE IN NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEMS: AN EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT

Replying to several research calls, I report promising results from an initial experiment which com-pares different negotiation support system approaches concerning their potential to reduce a user’s cognitive workload. Using a novel laboratory-based non-intrusive objective measurement technique which derives the user’s cognitive workload from pupillary responses and eye-movements, I experi-mentally evaluated a standard, a chat-based, and an argumentation-based negotiation support system and found that a higher assistance level of negotiation support systems actually leads to a lower user’s cognitive workload. In more detail, I found that an argumentation-based system which fully automates the generation of the user’s arguments significantly decreases the user’s cognitive workload compared to a standard system. In addition I found that a negotiation support system implementing an additional chat function significantly causes higher cognitive workload for users compared to a standard system

Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments

A Cloud Computing system must readjust its resources by taking into account the demand for its services. This raises the need for designing protocols that provide the individual components of the Cloud architecture with the ability to self-adapt and to reach agreements in order to deal with changes in the services demand. Furthermore, if the Cloud provider has signed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the clients of the services that it offers, the appropriate agreement mechanism has to ensure the provision of the service contracted within a specified time. This paper introduces real-time mechanisms for the agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. On the one hand, it presents a negotiation protocol inspired by the standard WSAgreement used in web services to manage the interactions between the client and the Cloud provider to agree the terms of the SLA of a service. On the other hand, it proposes the application of a real-time argumentation framework for redistributing resources and ensuring the fulfilment of these SLAs during peaks in the service demand.This work is supported by the Spanish government Grants CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01 and TIN2012-36586-C03-03.De La Prieta, F.; Heras Barberá, SM.; Palanca Cámara, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Bajo, J.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. AI Communications. 1-24. doi:10.3233/AIC-140626S124[1]V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley, Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment, in: Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED-97, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 39, IOS Press, 1997, pp. 87–94.[2]M. Alhamad, W. Perth, T. Dillon and E. Chang, Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing, in: 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 606–610.Armbrust, M., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., … Rabkin, A. (2010). A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 50. doi:10.1145/1721654.1721672Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-u[6]P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt and A. Warfield, Xen and the art of virtualization, in: 9th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP-03), ACM Press, 2003, pp. 164–177.Beloglazov, A., Abawajy, J., & Buyya, R. (2012). Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for Cloud computing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 28(5), 755-768. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.04.017[8]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient allocation of virtual machines in cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 577–578.[9]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient resource management in virtualized cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 826–831.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97-143. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00108-5[11]T.J. Bench-Capon, Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game, in: International Conferences on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX-98, Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 1998, pp. 5–20.[12]R. Buyya, R. Ranjan and R.N. Calheiros, Intercloud: Utility-oriented federation of cloud computing environments for scaling of application services, in: 10th International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing – Volume Part I, ICA3PP’10, Springer-Verlag, 2010, pp. 13–31.[13]R. Buyya, C.S. Yeo and S. Venugopal, Market-oriented cloud computing: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities, in: High Performance Computing and Communications, 2008. HPCC’08. 10th IEEE International Conference, September 2008, IEEE, 2008, pp. 5–13.Chen, C., Li, S. S., Chen, B., & Wen, D. (2011). Agent Recommendation for Agent-Based Urban-Transportation Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6), 77-81. doi:10.1109/mis.2011.94[15]Y.Y. Cheng, M. Low, S. Zhou, W. Cai and C.S. Choo, Evolving agent-based simulations in the clouds, in: 3rd International Workshop on Advanced Computational Intelligence (IWACI), 2010, pp. 244–249.[16]F. Dignum and H. Weigand, Communication and Deontic Logic, in: Information Systems – Correctness and Reusability. Selected Papers from the IS-CORE Workshop, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, eds, World Scientific Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 242–260.Erdogmus, H. (2009). Cloud Computing: Does Nirvana Hide behind the Nebula? IEEE Software, 26(2), 4-6. doi:10.1109/ms.2009.31[19]J.O. Fitó, I. Goiri and J. Guitart, SLA-driven elastic cloud hosting provider, in: 18th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 111–118.Fuentes-Fernández, R., Hassan, S., Pavón, J., Galán, J. M., & López-Paredes, A. (2012). Metamodels for role-driven agent-based modelling. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(1), 91-112. doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9110-5Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 24(4), 327-352. doi:10.1017/s0269888909990178Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2012.06.005[24]M. Jensen, J. Schwenk, N. Gruschka and L. Iacono, On technical security issues in cloud computing, in: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 109–116.Kakas, A., Maudet, N., & Moraitis, P. (2005). Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 189-206. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-2176-4[26]M.J. Kim, H.G. Yoon and H.K. Lee, MAV: An intelligent Multi-agent model based on Cloud computing for resource virtualization, in: Computers, Networks, Systems, and Industrial Engineering, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 365, Springer, 2011, pp. 99–111.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1-2), 1-69. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00078-2[28]W.-Y. Lin, G.-Y. Lin and H.-Y. Wei, Dynamic auction mechanism for cloud resource allocation, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, CCGRID’10, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2010, pp. 591–592.[29]S. Liu, G. Quan and S. Ren, On-line scheduling of real-time services for cloud computing, in: 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 459–464.Navarro, M., Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Towards real-time agreements. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3906-3917. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.087Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2011). An argumentation framework for learning, information exchange, and joint-deliberation in multi-agent systems1. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 7(2-3), 95-108. doi:10.3233/mgs-2011-0169Palanca, J., Navarro, M., García-Fornes, A., & Julian, V. (2013). Deadline prediction scheduling based on benefits. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(1), 61-73. doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.05.007[33]C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann and F. Leymann, Restful web services vs. “big”’ web services: making the right architectural decision, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW’08, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2008, pp. 805–814.[34]J. Peng, X. Zhang, Z. Lei, B. Zhang, W. Zhang and Q. Li, Comparison of several cloud computing platforms, in: 2nd International Symposium on Information Science and Engineering, ISISE’09, IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 23–27.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945[36]I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009.Ross, J. W., & Westerman, G. (2004). Preparing for utility computing: The role of IT architecture and relationship management. IBM Systems Journal, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1147/sj.431.0005Schaffer, H. E. (2009). X as a Service, Cloud Computing, and the Need for Good Judgment. IT Professional, 11(5), 4-5. doi:10.1109/mitp.2009.112[39]K.M. Sim, Agent-based cloud commerce, in: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 717–721.Soh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Talia, D. (2012). Clouds Meet Agents: Toward Intelligent Cloud Services. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(2), 78-81. doi:10.1109/mic.2012.28Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., & Cortés, U. (2011). Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 25(2), 209-259. doi:10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5[44]A. Toniolo, T. Norman and K. Sycara, An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue, in: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-12, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 242, IOS Press, 2012, pp. 756–761.[45]W.-T. Tsai, Q. Shao, X. Sun and J. Elston, Real-time service-oriented cloud computing, in: IEEE 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 473–478.[46]D. Walton, C. Reed and F. Macagno, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, 2008.[47]L. Wang, J. Tao, M. Kunze, A. Castellanos, D. Kramer and W. Karl, Scientific cloud computing: Early definition and experience, in: 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC-08), IEEE Press, 2008, pp. 825–830.[48]Y.O. Yazir, C. Matthews, R. Farahbod, S. Neville, A. Guitouni, S. Ganti and Y. Coady, Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis, in: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 91–98.[49]Y. Yu, S. Ren, N. Chen and X. Wang, Profit and penalty aware (pp-aware) scheduling for tasks with variable task execution time, in: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’10, ACM, 2010, pp. 334–339

Automatización robótica de procesos en la mejora del proceso de conciliación bancaria en una empresa de servicios de tecnología, Lima 2022

La presente investigación tiene como objetivo determinar de qué manera la automatización robótica de procesos mejora el proceso de conciliación bancaria en una empresa de servicios de tecnología, Lima 2022; se utilizó el método científico como parte de la metodología, el tipo de investigación que se adapta a la investigación fue de tipo aplicada y el diseño de investigación experimental del tipo experimental; para la recolección de datos se aplicó la técnica de observación, el instrumento seleccionado fue la guía de observación. Respecto de la preprueba y posprueba se identificaron resultados favorables del indicador tiempo de respuesta en la conciliación bancaria, los resultados de la preprueba y posprueba fueron 1:18 horas y 0:13 horas respectivamente para el indicador tiempo de respuesta, para el indicador índice de reportes de saldos efectivos los resultados de la preprueba y posprueba fueron 76.7800% y 90.2056% respectivamente y para el indicador índice de cumplimiento de SLA se incrementó de 50.4708% a 84.8966% entre la pre y posprueba; por ende se concluyó que posterior a la implementación de la automatización robótica de procesos, mejoró significativamente la conciliación bancaria en una empresa de servicios de tecnología, Lima 2022