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.
- R. K. Ahuja, T. L. Magnanti, and J. B. Orlin. 1993. Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms and Application. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. Flum and M. Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- D. E. Goldberg. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Finding the Largest Successful Coalition under the Strict Goal Preferences of Agents
Recommendations
Preference-Based Goal Refinement in BDI Agents
AAMAS '22: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent SystemsComputational agents based on the BDI framework typically rely on abstract plans and plan refinement to reach a degree of autonomy in dynamic environments: agents are provided with the ability to selecthow-to achieve their goals by choosing from a set ...
Preferences and Constraints for Agent Coalition Formation
WI-IAT '13: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT) - Volume 02In this paper, we tackle the problem of coalition formation in multi-agent systems. We detail a new coalition formation model that uses the constraints of the agents to guide their search for coalitions and to derive their preferences in order to ...
Preference generation for autonomous agents
MATES'10: Proceedings of the 8th German conference on Multiagent system technologiesAn intelligent agent situated in an environment needs to know the preferred states it is expected to achieve or maintain so that it can work towards achieving or maintaining them. We refer to all these preferred states as "preferences". The preferences ...






Comments