toward optimal and efficient adaptation in web processes
DESCRIPTION
Toward Optimal and Efficient Adaptation in Web Processes. Prashant Doshi LSDIS Lab., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia Joint work with: Kunal Verma, Yunzhou Wu, and Amit Sheth. Outline of the Talk. Understanding Volatility Two characterizations Our Approach - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Toward Optimal and Efficient Adaptation in Web Processes
Prashant DoshiLSDIS Lab., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia
Joint work with:
Kunal Verma, Yunzhou Wu, and Amit Sheth
Outline of the Talk• Understanding Volatility
– Two characterizations
• Our Approach– Abstract Processes and Service Managers– Adaptation as a Decision-Making Problem
• A Framework for Studying Adaptation– Evaluation criteria
• Optimality• Computational Efficiency
• Some Experimental Results
• Value of Changed Information– Definition– Experimental Results
• Discussion and Future Work
Understanding Volatility• Data Volatility
– Atypical input and execution data• Eg. delay in satisfying order
adverse drug reaction– New knowledge
• Eg. New drug alert
Component Volatility– Change in the state of the process
participants• Eg. Web service failure or abnormal behavior
• Expected Volatility– Events known to occur with some chance
• Eg. delay in satisfying order Worsening of patient symptoms
Unexpected Volatility– Eg. New drug alert
New co-morbidity
data volatility
component volatility
expected(with some chance)
unexpected
Abstract Processes and Service Managers• Pre-specified abstract processes
– Ordering of activities– Inter-activity constraints: Eg. Coordination constraints
• Process and Service Managers
Heart FailureClinical Pathway
Abstract Processes and Service Managers• Our architecture
– Two tiers• Resources Layer• Control Layer
A Framework for Studying Adaptation• Two criteria for evaluating approaches
– Cost-based optimality
– Computational efficiency
• Formalize adaptation as a decision problem– Two general choices
• Ignore the change• React to the change
– Example methodology: Markov decision processes (MDP)
Decreasing OptimalityDecreasing Computational Efficiency
Centralized Adaptation
DecentralizedAdaptationHybrid approaches
A Framework for Studying Adaptation• Centralized Approaches
– PM is responsible for adaptation• Global oversight
• Decentralized Approaches– SMs are responsible for local adaptation
• Local oversight
• Difficult to manage inter-activity constraints
• Hybrid Approaches– Both PM and SMs share the responsibility of adaptation
• Global and local oversight
Establishing the Ends of the Spectrum• Centralized adaptation to
expected data volatility• Example: M-MDP method (Verma, Doshi et al. ICWS 06)
Properties:
Theorem: M-MDP adapts the process optimally
to exogenous events expected with some chance
and with coordination constraints
• PM has global oversight and controls the SMs• Does not scale well: Complexity exponential in the number of SMs
Computer assembly
Establishing the Ends of the Spectrum• Decentralized adaptation to
expected data volatility• Example: MDP-CoM method (Verma, Doshi et al. ICWS 06)
• Challenge: Satisfying
coordination constraints
Properties:• Scalable to multiple SMs• Not optimal
Computer assembly
Coordination Mechanism
Research Challenge: Hybrid Approaches• Idea #1: Least-commitment
– PM steps in only when needed• Eg. when deciding on a coordinating action
• Idea #2: Inter-SM communication– Motivation for communication: Regret
Penalty of delay = $400
900
1300
1700
2100
2500
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Probability of delay
Av
era
ge
Co
st(
$) M-MDP
Random
Hyb. MDP
MDP-CoM
Penalty of delay = $200
900
1300
1700
2100
2500
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Probability of delayA
vera
ge
Co
st($
)
M-MDP
Random
Hyb. MDP
MDP-CoM
Some Experimental ResultsAdapting to delay in supply chain• Choices
•Wait out the delay•Change the supplier
M-MDP incurs the least average costMDP-CoM the most
Runtime for MDP-CoM remains fixedas number of activities increases•Decentralized adaptation is parallelizable
Related work• Verification of correctness of manual changes to control flow
– Adept (Reichert&Dadam98), Workflow inheritance (Aalst&Basten02), inter-task dependencies (Attie et al.93)
• Event Condition Action (ECA) rules for adaptation– Agentwork (Muller et al.04)
• Change of service providers based on migration rules in E-Flow (Casati et al.00)
• We complement previous work in this area by emphasizing:– Cost based optimality – Computational efficiency
Unexpected Data Volatility• Example
– Rate of supplier satisfaction may change arbitrarily– Cost of service may change arbitrarily
• Research Challenges1. How to be cognizant of the change
2. When to adapt to the change
• Our approach– Query the service providers for revised information
• Cost of querying!
– Adapt when information is useful
Possible Approaches• Query a random provider for relevant information
– Advantages• Up-to-date knowledge of queried service provider• Performs no worse than “do nothing” strategy
– Disadvantages• Querying for information not free • Paying for information that may not be useful
– Information may not change Web process
• Value of Changed Information (VOC) (Harney&Doshi,ICSOC06)– Decides if obtaining information is:
• Useful– Will it induce a change in optimality of Web process?
• Cost-efficient– Is the information worth the cost of obtaining it?
• Extension of VOI (Value of Information)
Value of Changed Information• VOC
– Measures how “badly” the current process is expected to perform in changed environment
– Defined as the difference between:• Expected performance of the old process in the changed environment• Expected performance of the best process in the changed environment
• Formalizing VOC– Actual service parameters are not known
• Must average over all possible revised parameters
– We use a belief of revised values • Could be learned over time
Manufacturer’s Beliefs For Supply Chain
Example - Beliefs of Order Satisfaction
Adaptive Web Process Composition
…Prov 1 Prov 2 Prov n
VOC VOC VOC
Keep current process
Query Provider Re-compute process if
needed
1. SM calculates VOC for each service provider involved in Web process
2. PM finds provider whose changed parameter induces the greatest change in process (VOC*)
3. Compare VOC* to cost of querying
VOC* < Cost of Querying
VOC* > Cost of Querying
*
Empirical ResultsMeasured the average process cost over a range of query cost values
– Query random strategy cost grows at a larger rate than VOC– VOC queries selectively– VOC performs no worse than the do nothing strategy
Supply Chain Web Process Patient Transfer Web Process
Discussion• Understanding dynamic environments is crucial
– Categorizations needed• Data and component volatility
• Expected (with probabilities known a’priori) and unexpected events
• Other taxonomies?
• A framework for studying adaptation– Criteria for evaluation
• Cost-based optimality
• Computational efficiency
– We established the ends of the spectrum• Centralized (M-MDP) and decentralized approaches (MDP-CoM)
• Research on hybrid approaches needed
Discussion
• Value of changed information (VOC)– Unexpected and arbitrary data volatility– Query for revised information
• Obtains revised information expected to be useful
• Avoids unnecessary queries
• VOC calculations are computationally expensive– Knowledge of service parameter guarantees may be used to
eliminate unnecessary VOC calculations (WWW07 submission)
– Other approaches needed
Future Work
• Handle component volatility– Candidate approaches: A-WSCE architecture (Chafle et
al.06)
– k-service redundancy and k-process redundancy
• Integrate VOC into A-WSCE architecture– Collaboration with B. Srivastava
Thank You
Questions