A Survey on Fault Tolerant Multi Agent System
Open accessAbstract
A mult i-agent system (MAS) is formed by a number of agents connected together to achieve the desired goals specified by the design.Usually in a mu lti agent system, agents work on behalf of a user to accomplish given goals.In MAS co-ordination, co-operation, negotiation and communication are important aspects to achieve fault tolerance in MAS.The mu lti-agent system is likely to fail in a distributed environment and as an outcome o f such, the resources for MAS may not be available due to the failure of an agent, mach ine crashes, process failure, software failure, communicat ion failure and/or hardware failure.Therefore, many researchers have proposed fault tolerance approaches to overcome the failure in MAS.So we have surveyed these approaches in this paper, whereby our contribution is threefold.Firstly, we have provided taxono my of faults and techniques in MAS.Secondly, we have provided a qualitative comparison of existing fault tolerance approaches.Thirdly, we have provided an evaluation of existing fau lt tolerance techniques.Results show that most of the existing schemes are not very efficient, due to various reasons like high computation costs, costly replication and large co mmunicat ion overheads.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Different levels of replication and management functions can be introduced in a DT system to guarantee persistency of the digital copy.
“Different approaches can be adopted to guarantee the persistency of the digital copy.In fact, different levels of replication and management functions [135] [136] [137] [138] can be introduced in a DT system, as well as different communication capabilities and related platforms functions in order to implement a resilient DT framework [139].”
From Digital Twin in the IoT Context: A Survey on Technical Features, Scenarios, and Architectural Models (2020) · cites this paper as [137]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Digital Twin in the IoT Context: A Survey on Technical Features, Scenarios, and Architectural Models
Minerva, R., Lee, G. M., & Crespi, N. (2020) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2020.2998530 · Cited by 812 · see citing works
- Authors
- Department of Computer Science King Abdul Aziz University Jeddah, S. A., Arfat, Y., & Eassa, F. E.
- Affiliations
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science
- Publisher
- MECS Publisher
- Published
- 2016-09-08
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 39-48
- ISSN
- 2074-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 2074-9015
- OpenAlex
- W2509785985
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Mobile Agent-Based Network Management
- Keywords
- fault tolerance, multi-agent systems, fault tolerance techniques, agent failure, replication, communication overhead, distributed systems, agent coordination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review