2013
DOI: 10.1109/tsmca.2012.2192263
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Agent-Based Interaction Protocols and Topologies for Manufacturing Task Allocation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The advantage of the threshold-based method in comparison to the market-based approach is that it avoids the effects of a continuous change of bids, which leaves the indirect threshold approach free from communication scalability complexities (Goldingay & Van Mourik, 2013;Shen, 2002). The other component which acts alongside the negotiation mechanism is the interaction protocol, which manages the time and structure of exchanging data between each agent (Jules, Saadat, & Saeidlou, 2015;Owliya, Saadat, Jules, Goharian, & Anane, 2013).…”
Section: Distributed Agents' Interaction Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advantage of the threshold-based method in comparison to the market-based approach is that it avoids the effects of a continuous change of bids, which leaves the indirect threshold approach free from communication scalability complexities (Goldingay & Van Mourik, 2013;Shen, 2002). The other component which acts alongside the negotiation mechanism is the interaction protocol, which manages the time and structure of exchanging data between each agent (Jules, Saadat, & Saeidlou, 2015;Owliya, Saadat, Jules, Goharian, & Anane, 2013).…”
Section: Distributed Agents' Interaction Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most scheduling systems used in industrial environments currently operate centrally and hierarchically [36], that is, with decisions being made at a single point in the system and being passed down to the remaining stations from top to bottom. Although centralization may allow a reliable overview of the system state [31], the use of a centralized top-down approach for task distribution causes rigidity and limits real-world problem-solving capability [40,41]. Hence, a hierarchical and centralized scheduling is ineffective in highly dynamic environments where unexpected events are more frequent.…”
Section: Multi-agent Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These tools enable agent classes with specific attributes, as well as creating a virtual environment where these agents can send and receive information. Attendance to FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents), a reference organization responsible for establishing and developing software standards for agents and systems based on agents, is a relevant indicator for choosing the software to be used [40]. Among the available options, reference [75] cite as examples of software developed according to FIPA standards: FIPA-OS, Java Agent Development Environment (JADE), Manufacturing Agent Simulation Tool, ZEUS, MAST and GrassHopper.…”
Section: Technical Details Of Implementationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Later, Owliya et al proposed four agent-based models for task allocation in manufacturing shop floor in which two of them employed the CNP. Besides, the prominent position of the agent-based scheduling within the broad area of scheduling was discussed [29]. Lange et al studied a new approach to modeling well scheduling processes in oil and gas industry using the notion of virtual enterprise with intelligent agents and contract net protocol in multi-agent systems technologies, which efficiently assists in the scheduling of resources across the well life cycle [30].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%