Trade of a problem-solving task

This paper focuses on a task allocation problem, particularly in cases where the task is to find a solution to a search problem or a constraint satisfaction problem. If the search problem is difficult to solve, a contractor may fail to find a solution. Here, the more computational resources, such as the CPU time, the contractor invests in solving the search problem, the more likely a solution will be found. This brings about a new problem in which a contractee has to find an appropriate quality level in task achievement as well as to efficiently allocate a task among contractors. For example, if the contractee asks the contractor to find a solution with certainty, the payment from the contractee to the contractor may exceed the contractee's benefit from obtaining a solution, which discourages the contractee from trading a task. However, it is difficult to solve this problem because the contractee cannot ascertain the contractor's problem-solving ability such as the amount of available resources and knowledge (e.g. algorithms, heuristics) nor monitor how many resources are actually invested in solving the allocated task. To solve this problem, we propose a task allocation mechanism that is able to choose an appropriate quality level in task achievement and prove that this mechanism guarantees that each contractor reveals its true information. Moreover, we show that our mechanism can increase the contractee's utility compared with a simple auction mechanism by using computer simulations.

[1]  R. Preston McAfee,et al.  Bidding for contracts: a principal-agent analysis , 1986 .

[2]  Jean Tirole,et al.  Auctioning Incentive Contracts , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Speeding Up Ascending-Bid Auctions , 1999, IJCAI.

[4]  E. Brousseau,et al.  The Economics of Contracts: Bibliography , 2002 .

[5]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Mechanism Design with Execution Uncertainty , 2002, UAI.

[6]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Robust Combinatorial Auction Protocol against False-Name Bids , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[7]  Tad Hogg,et al.  The Hardest Constraint Problems: A Double Phase Transition , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[8]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Achieving Budget-Balance with Vickrey-Based Payment Schemes in Exchanges , 2001, IJCAI.

[9]  T. Sandholm Limitations of the Vickrey Auction in Computational Multiagent Systems , 1996 .

[10]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems , 1992, AAAI.

[11]  D. Sappington Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships , 1991 .

[12]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions , 2014 .

[13]  Wolfgang Leiniger,et al.  Games and information: An introduction to game theory: Eric Rasmusen, (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989) , 1991 .

[14]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Auction Protocols for Decentralized Scheduling , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[15]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Bargaining with limited computation: Deliberation equilibrium , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Defection-free exchange mechanisms based on an entry fee imposition , 2002, Artif. Intell..