skip to main content
research-article

Finding the Largest Successful Coalition under the Strict Goal Preferences of Agents

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 September 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Coalition formation has been a fundamental form of resource cooperation for achieving joint goals in multiagent systems. Most existing studies still focus on the traditional assumption that an agent has to contribute its resources to all the goals, even if the agent is not interested in the goal at all. In this article, a natural extension of the traditional coalitional resource games (CRGs) is studied from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, in which each agent has uncompromising, personalized preferences over goals. Specifically, a new CRGs model with agents’ strict preferences for goals is presented, in which an agent is willing to contribute its resources only to the goals that are in its own interest set. The computational complexity of the basic decision problems surrounding the successful coalition is reinvestigated. The results suggest that these problems in such a strict preference way are complex and intractable. To find the largest successful coalition for possible computation reduction or potential parallel processing, a flow-network–based exhaust algorithm, called FNetEA, is proposed to achieve the optimal solution. Then, to solve the problem more efficiently, a hybrid algorithm, named 2D-HA, is developed to find the approximately optimal solution on the basis of genetic algorithm, two-dimensional (2D) solution representation, and a heuristic for solution repairs. Through extensive experiments, the 2D-HA algorithm exhibits the prominent ability to provide reassurances that the optimal solution could be found within a reasonable period of time, even in a super-large-scale space.

References

  1. R. K. Ahuja, T. L. Magnanti, and J. B. Orlin. 1993. Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms and Application. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. N. Alechina, B. Logan, N. H. Nga, and A. Rakib. 2011. Logic for coalitions with bounded resources. J. Logic Comput. 21, 6 (2011), 907--937. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exq032Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. G. Anders, A. Schiendorfer, F. Siefert, J.-P. Steghöfer, and W. Reif. 2015. Cooperative resource allocation in open systems of systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 10, 2, Article 11 (2015), 44 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700323Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. V. Avasarala, H. Polavarapu, and T. Mullen. 2006. An approximate algorithm for resource allocation using combinatorial auctions. In Procedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology. IEEE Computer Society, 571--578. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IAT.2006.33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Y. Bachrach, R. Meir, K. Jung, and P. Kohli. 2010. Coalitional structure generation in skill games. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 703--708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Y. Bachrach, D. C. Parkes, and J. S. Rosenschein. 2013. Computing cooperative solution concepts in coalitional skill games. Artif. Intell. 204 (2013), 1--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2013.07.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Cechlárová. 2010. On max-min linear inequalities and coalitional resource games with sharable resources. Lin. Algebr. Appl. 433, 1 (2010), 127--135. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2010.01.039Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Cerquides, A. Farinelli, P. Meseguer, and S. D. Ramchurn. 2014. A tutorial on optimization for multi-agent systems. Comput. J. 57, 6 (2014), 799--824. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxt146Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. G. Chalkiadakis, E. Elkind, E. Markakis, M. Polukarov, and N. R. Jennings. 2010. Cooperative games with overlapping coalitions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 39 (2010), 179--216. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3075Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Changder, S. Aknine, S. Ramchurn, and A. Dutta. 2020. ODSS: Efficient hybridization for optimal coalition structure generation. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 7079--7086.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Chitnis, M. T. Hajiaghayi, and V. Liaghat. 2011. Parameterized complexity of problems in coalitional resource games. In Proceedings of the 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 620--625.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. V. Conitzer. 2010. Making decisions based on the preferences of multiple agents. Commun. ACM 53, 3 (2010), 84--94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1666420.1666442Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Cotta and F. Neri. 2012. Memetic algorithms and memetic computing optimization: A literature review. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2 (2012), 1--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2011.11.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. V. D. Dang and N. R. Jennings. 2006. Coalition structure generation in task-based settings. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Riva del Garda, Italy, 567--571.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Droste, T. Jansen, and I. Wegener. 2002. On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Theor. Comput. Sci. 276, 1--2 (2002), 51--81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00182-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. E. Dunne, S. Kraus, E. Manisterski, and M. Wooldridge. 2010. Solving coalitional resource games. Artif. Intell. 174, 1 (2010), 20--50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.09.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. E. Eiben and J. Smith. 2015. From evolutionary computation to the evolution of things. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 476--482. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14544Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Esterle, P. R. Lewis, X. Yao, and B. Rinner. 2014. Socio-economic vision graph generation and handover in distributed smart camera networks. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. 10, 2, Article 20 (2014), 24 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2530001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Farinelli, M. Bicego, F. Bistaffa, and S. D. Ramchurn. 2017. A hierarchical clustering approach to large-scale near-optimal coalition formation with quality guarantees. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 59 (2017), 170--185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.12.018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. J. Flum and M. Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. E. Goldberg. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. V. Goldman and J. S. Rosenschein. 2002. Evolutionary patterns of agent organizations. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet A 32, 1 (2002), 135--148. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.995535Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. B. Kurka, J. Pitt, and J. Ober. 2019. Knowledge management for self-organised resource allocation. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 14, 1, Article 1 (2019), 41 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3337796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. P. R. Lewis, L. Esterle, A. Chandra, B. Rinner, J. Torresen, and X. Yao. 2015. Static, dynamic and adaptive heterogeneity in distributed smart camera networks. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 10, 2, Article 8 (2015), 30 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2764460Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. R. Lewis, P. Marrow, and X. Yao. 2010. Resource allocation in decentralised computational systems: An evolutionary market-based approach. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 21, 2 (2010), 143--171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-009-9113-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Liu, Y. Mei, and X. Li. 2016. An analysis of the inertia weight parameter for binary particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 20, 5 (2016), 666--681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2015.2503422Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Y. Liu, G. Zhang, Z. Su, F. Yue, and J. Jiang. 2016. Using computational intelligence algorithms to solve the coalition structure generation problem in coalitional skill games. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 31, 6 (2016), 1136--1150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-016-1688-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Lukasiewycz, M. Glass, C. Haubelt, and J. Teich. 2008. A feasibility-preserving local search operator for constrained discrete optimization problems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, 1968--1975. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2008.4631058Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. T. Michalak, T. Rahwan, E. Elkind, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. 2016. A hybrid exact algorithm for complete set partitioning. Artif. Intell. 230 (2016), 14--50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.09.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Peleteiro, J. C.Burguillo, J. L. Arcos, and J. A. Rodriguez-Aguilar. 2014. Fostering cooperation through dynamic coalition formation and partner switching. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 9, 1, Article 1 (2014), 31 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2567928Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. R. Poli and W. B. Langdon. 2006. Backward-chaining evolutionary algorithms. Artif. Intell. 170, 11 (2006), 953--982. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2006.04.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. T. Rahwan and N. R. Jennings. 2008. An improved dynamic programming algorithm for coalition structure generation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1417--1420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. T. Rahwan, T. P. Michalak, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. 2015. Coalition structure generation: A survey. Artif. Intell. 229 (2015), 139--174. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.08.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. T. Rahwan, S. D. Ramchurn, A. Giovannucci, and N. R. Jennings. 2009. An anytime algorithm for optimal coalition structure generation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 34 (2009), 521--567. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2695Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. T. W. Sandhlom and V. R. T. Lesser. 1997. Coalitions among computationally bounded agents. Artif. Intell. 94, 1--2 (1997), 99--137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00030-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. S. Sen and P. S. Dutta. 2000. Searching for optimal coalition structures. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 287--292. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMAS.2000.858465Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. S. D. Sen. 2015. An intelligent and unified framework for multiple robot and human coalition formation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 4395--4396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. T. C. Service and J. A. Adams. 2011. Coalition formation for task allocation: Theory and algorithms. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 22, 2 (2011), 225--248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9123-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. T. C. Service and J. A. Adams. 2011. Constant factor approximation algorithms for coalition structure generation. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 23, 1 (2011), 1--17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9124-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. T. C. Service and J. A. Adams. 2011. Randomized coalition structure generationn. Artif. Intell. 175, 16--17 (2011), 2061--2074. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.08.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. O. Shehory and S. Kraus. 1998. Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artif. Intell. 101, 1--2 (1998), 165--200. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00045-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. T. Shrot, Y. Aumann, and S. Kraus. 2009. Easy and hard coalition resource game formation problems: A parameterized complexity analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 433--440.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. R. Stranders, E. M. de Cote, A. Rogers, and N. R. Jennings. 2013. Near-optimal continuous patrolling with teams of mobile information gathering agents. Artif. Intell. 195 (2013), 63--105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. N. T. Tam, H. T. T. Binh, D. A. Dung, P. N. Lan, L. T. Vinh, B. Yuan, and X. Yao. 2019. A hybrid clustering and evolutionary approach for wireless underground sensor network lifetime maximization. Inf. Sci. 504 (2019), 372--393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.07.060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. M. Wooldridge and P. E. Dunne. 2006. On the computational complexity of coalitional resource games. Artif. Intell. 170, 10 (2006), 853--871. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2006.03.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. F. Wu and S. D. Ramchurn. 2020. Monte-Carlo tree search for scalable coalition formation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 17th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 407--413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. J. Yang and Z. Luo. 2007. Coalition formation mechanism in multi-agent systems based on genetic algorithms. Appl. Soft Comput. 7, 2 (2007), 561--568. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2006.04.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Y. Yu, X. Yao, and Z. Zhou. 2012. On the approximation ability of evolutionary optimization with application to minimum set cover. Artif. Intell. 180--181 (2012), 20--33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.01.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. B. Yuan, H. Chen, and X. Yao. 2017. Optimal relay placement for lifetime maximization in wireless underground sensor networks. Inf. Sci. 418--419 (2017), 463--479. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. G. Zhang, Z. Su, M. Li, M. Qi, J. Jiang, and X. Yao. 2020. A task-oriented heuristic for repairing infeasible solutions to overlapping coalition structure generation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet.: Systems 50, 3 (2020), 785--801. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2017.2712624Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. G. Zhang, R. Yang, Z. Su, F. Yue, Y. Fan, M. Qi, and J. Jiang. 2015. Using binary particle swarm optimization to search for maximal successful coalition. Appll. Intell. 42, 2 (2015), 195--209. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0589-yGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. K. Zhang, E. G. Collins, and D. Shi. 2012. Centralized and distributed task allocation in multi-robot teams via a stochastic clustering auction. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 7, 2, Article 21 (2012), 22 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2240166.2240171Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Y. Zick, G. Chalkiadakis, E. Elkind, and E. Markakis. 2019. Cooperative games with overlapping coalitions: Charting the tractability frontier. Artif. Intell. 271 (2019), 74--97. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.11.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Y. Zick, E. Markakis, and E. Elkind. 2014. Arbitration and stability in cooperative games with overlapping coalitions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 50 (2014), 847--884. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4237Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Finding the Largest Successful Coalition under the Strict Goal Preferences of Agents

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!