1 / 33

Workshop on High Performance, Fault-Adaptive Large Scale Real-Time Systems Vanderbilt University

Workshop on High Performance, Fault-Adaptive Large Scale Real-Time Systems Vanderbilt University. The SRTA Agent Architecture as a Basis for Building Soft Real-Time Multi-Agent Systems Victor R. Lesser Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts, Amherst November 15, 2002.

alexia
Download Presentation

Workshop on High Performance, Fault-Adaptive Large Scale Real-Time Systems Vanderbilt University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Workshop on High Performance, Fault-Adaptive Large Scale Real-Time SystemsVanderbilt University The SRTA Agent Architecture as a Basis for Building Soft Real-Time Multi-Agent Systems Victor R. Lesser Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts, Amherst November 15, 2002

  2. Acknowledgements • Byran Horling • Dr. Regis Vincent (SRI) • Dr. Tom Wagner (Honeywell Research) • URL:http://mas.cs.umass.edu/~bhorling/papers/02-14.ps.gz

  3. Outline • Background/Motivation • EW Challenge Problem • Approach to Soft Real-Time • Approach to Building MAS • SRTA Agent Architecture • Experimental Evaluation • Summary

  4. Long Term Motivation • Development of domain-independent techniques (toolkits) for coordinating the soft real-time activities of teams of cooperative agents? • Ease the construction of complex, multi-agent applications that operate in a coherent manner • Avoid reproducing for each application the complex reasoning involved in soft real-time control and in coordinating the activities of agents

  5. DARPA EW Challenge Problem: Distributed Sensor Network • Small 2D Doppler radar units • Scan one of three 120 sectors at a time • Commodity Processor associated with each radar • Communicate short messages using radio • Triangulate radars to do tracking

  6. Approach to Soft Real-Time: Design-to-Time • “Given a time bound, dynamically construct and execute a problem-solving procedure which will (probably) produce a reasonable answer with (approximately) the time available.” (D’Ambrosio) • Involves elements of planning (deciding what to do) and scheduling (deciding when to perform particular actions).

  7. TÆMS: A Domain Independent Framework for Modeling Agent Activities • The top-level goals/objectives/abstract-tasks that an agent intends to achieve • One or more of the possible ways that they could be achieved • abstraction hierarchy (HTN) whose leaves are basic action instantiations, called methods • A precise, quantitative definition of the performance (Qaf’s) • solution quality, cost, time and resource usage.

  8. Soft Real Time Control -- Different Paths for Achieving Task -- “BUILD PRODUCT OBJECTS” • Schedule A - Client has no resource limitations; maximize quality • Query-and-Extract-PC-Connection, Query-and-Extract-PC-Mall, Search-and-Process-ZDnet, Query-and-Process-Consumers-Report (Expected Q=55.3,C=2, D=11.5) • Schedule B - Client is interested in a free solution • Query-and-Extract-PC-Connection, Query-and-Extract-PC-Mall, Search-and-Process-Zdnet (Expected Q=33.2,C=0, D=8.4) • Schedule C - Client request an even trade-off between quality, cost and duration • Query-and-Extract-PC-Connection, Search-and-Process-Zdnet (Expected Q=22.4,C=0, D=5.6) • Schedule D - Client wishes to maximize quality while meeting a hard deadline of 7 minutes • Query-and-Extract-PC-Mall, Query-and-Process-Consumers-Report (Expected Q=25.9,C=2, D=6) Examples of Schedules Produced by the Design-To-Criteria (DTC) Scheduler

  9. Representing Coordination Patterns Among Agents

  10. Approach to Decomposing A Problem into Agents • Sophisticated/Highly Competent Agents • Concurrent goals, goals are time and resource sensitive, goals have varying utilities • Goals have alternative ways of being solved that produce differing levels of utility and consume differing amounts of resources • Not all goals necessarily need to be solved • (Sub)Goals spread across agents are interdependent • Contention for scarce resources • Contributing towards the solution of a higher-level goal • Hard and soft constraints • Sufficient computational/communication resources to do “some” reasoning about coordination • Medium granularity domain tasks

  11. Sector Manager Tracking Manager Scanning Agent Tracking Agent What about simpler agents? • Activities of simple,single-threaded agents become the goals of sophisticated agents with dedicated processing resources • Sophisticated agents do the selection, multiplexing, scheduling, coordination and distribution of goals • Contrast with O.S. doing the scheduling without context

  12. Approach to Soft, Real-Time Distributed Coordination/Resource Allocation • Structured as a distributed optimization problem with a range of “satisficing” solutions • Adaptable to available time and communication bandwidth • Responsive to dynamics of environment • Organizationally constrained — range of agents and issues are limited • Can be done at different levels of abstraction • Does not require all issues to be resolved to be successful — resource manager agents able to resolve some issues locally

  13. Layered Agent Architecture Problem Solver / Negotiation Soft Real Time Architecture Java Agent Framework • Domain analysis and goal formulation • Organization-level resource allocation • Agent-level resource allocation • Constraint discovery and satisfaction • Intra-agent organization and communication • Environmental access points

  14. JAF: Java Agent Architecture • Component-based agent design • Attempt to maximize code reuse. Problem Solver Execute Control Communicate Pulse Actions Scan Scheduler Execute Control Communicate Sensor State Log Resource Modeler Scheduler Directory Service Observe • Interfaces are hidden by JAF. • Radsim/ RF communication/ sensor

  15. SRTA: Soft Real-Time Agent Architecture • Facilitates creation of multi-resource management agents • Basis of building complex “virtual” agent organizations • Allows for abstract negotiation — maps abstract assignment into detailed resource allocations • Ability to resolve conflicts locally that are not resolved through negotiation These are key to building soft real-time distributed allocation policies

  16. Soft Real-Time Control Architecture Schedule Failure Problem solver Periodic Task Controller Negotiation (e.g. SPAM) Commitments/ Decommitments Goal Description/Objective Update Expectations TÆMS Library Schedule failure/ Abstract view Other Agents TAEMS-Plan Network/Objective Learning Update Cache Cache Check Resource Modeler Cache Hit DTC-Planner Resource Uses Linear Plan Schedule Conflict Resolution Module Partial Order Scheduler Schedule Failure Parallel Schedule Multiple Structures Results Parallel Execution Module Task Merging

  17. Characteristics of Soft Real-Time Control Architecture • Operates at 50 to 100ms cycle time • Written in JAVA except for Planner in C++ • Uses domain-independent, quantitative representation of agent activities -- TÆMS • Scheduling of multiple activities that have deadlines and are resource sensitive • Can choose among alternative ways of achieving activities that trade off decreased utility for lower resource consumption • Responds to uncertain conditions without the need for complete re-planning/scheduling of activities

  18. Addressing Real Time – Direct • Direct technologies - making it possible • DTC (Design-To-Criteria) planner • TÆMS HTN for representing alternative plan options using quantitative information • Create appropriate plan given time, resource costs and quality constraints • Partial order scheduling creates “loose” schedules which can be quickly shifted to real-time constraints. • Avoids constant re-planning • Allows parallel execution and resource usage. • Modeling of some meta-level activities (e.g. negotiation) permit more direct reasoning of time allocation. • We do not model scheduling costs yet. • Learning component discerns actual execution characteristics so future actions can be better modeled.

  19. Addressing Real Time – Indirect • Indirect technologies - making it easier • Periodic commitments reduce the need for re-negotiation. • Scheduled caching reduces the need to call DTC • Piecemeal addition and removal of tasks eliminates the need for constant dramatic rescheduling and re-planning.

  20. Scheduling • Partial-order Scheduler uses a “sliding” mechanism, coupled with a resource modeler, to quickly shift scheduled tasks. • Action start time uncertainty - real time. • Duration uncertainty. • Commitments have a “window” of time in which the agent can perform them. • Precise action scheduling is left to the discretion of the performing agent.

  21. Task 1 Q_min Task Q_max Set-parameters First task to achieve enables3 enables2 Send Results Track Low Track Medium Track High lock RF Sensor Deadline: 3000

  22. Enables4 Q_min Task3 Q_min Calibrate Init Task2 Negotiate-Tracking 2 Other tasks to achieve Send-Message 1 Send-tracking-Info Enables4 Enables1 lock1 RF Sensor

  23. Reacting to Unexpected Changes Set-Parameters Track-Medium Send-Results Calibrate Init Send Msg Negotiate-Tracking Send-Info-Tracking time 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 500 Set-Parameters Track-Medium Send-Results Calibrate Init Send Msg Negotiate-Tracking Send-Info-Tracking time 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 500 Set-Parameters Track-Medium Send-Results Calibrate Init Send Msg Negotiate-Tracking Send-Info-Tracking time 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 500 • Analogous reactions also take place within the periodic task controller • Slot-based scheduler used to facilitate repetitive actions

  24. Meta-Level Costing • Typical scheduling reasons about primitive actions. • This only accounts for some percentage of the agent’s time. • So called meta-level activities (e.g. negotiation, scheduling, planning) use significant resources but are usually not accounted for directly. • Without accountability, these activities can interfere with the actions and commitments currently scheduled over.

  25. Meta-Level Costing (cont’d) • To completely reason about all the agent’s actions, we must: • Directly and Indirectly incorporate the activities in plans. • Derive expected costs for these activities. • Use this information when generating schedules. • We are currently using a representation of negotiation activities in some our task structures • Future goal is to more directly account for activities like planning and scheduling.

  26. Reducing Scheduling Overhead • Activity parallelism learning • Anticipation of converting linear plan to parallel plan if resources are available • Schedule caching • Adjustable time granularity • Responsiveness vs. meta-level overhead

  27. Plan B Original Plan E q_min q_max A B C1 C2 Deadline DTC Schedule A B C1 Deadline Actual Schedule A C1 B Plan With Hints Plan B E q_min q_max A B C1 C2 F F Deadline DTC Schedule B A C2 Deadline Actual Schedule A C2 B Activity Parallelism Learning • The plan is first scheduled… • The schedule is analyzed for parallel actions • These are used to form sets of “hints,” associated with the current resource context • A hint is actually just a mutual facilitates relationship • These hints are later applied to the task structure before planning • The facilitates tells DTC that if A is run first, B will have a duration of zero (or vice versa) • This technique required no changes to DTC • This can result in better plan selection.

  28. Schedule Caching • Agents in repetitive environments must frequently address goals which have previously been seen. • Ex: In sensor environment, “Scan-Sector” or “Perform-Track-Measurement” • Results from prior planning can be reused • A key is generated for each task structure • Incorporates method names and expectations, interrelationships, normalized deadlines, etc. • Works correctly with activity parallelism hints • If results exist from a task structure with the same key, that plan is used instead of calling DTC • DTC is an external C++ binary, requiring file reads and writes, so savings are significant

  29. 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Adjustable Time Granularity • The millisecond time line is divided into coarser increments. • Does not significantly degrade the agent’s ability to meet “wall clock” time deadlines • (assuming success within a reasonable grain size) • It does decrease the number of rescheduling events which are needed • Since the agent was already operating effectively at a coarse timeline, this technique has no new drawbacks. Deadlines Deadlines Real Time Real Time 1 2 3 4 5 Perceived Time Perceived Time Actions Actions û û û û ü ü

  30. Effects of Schedule Caching • Periodic tasks and methods with deadlines are more achievable • As a result, track updates increase

  31. Effects of Changing Granularity Rescheduling attempts decrease, reducing overhead Methods with deadlines and periodic tasks are satisfied more often 30-40 seems ideal; above that, the coarse granularity decreases agent responsiveness

  32. Summary • SRTA architecture is a powerful tool for building soft real time agent organizations • Sophisticated soft real time agent control is practical by exploiting a variety of mechanisms • to speed up the planning, scheduling and rescheduling cycles

  33. Continue to speed up architecture Simple Planner for time-critical situations Additional work on conflict-resolution strategies Meta-level control component to balance control and coordination costs and domain problem solving Future SRTA Work

More Related