Solution sets for DCOPs and graphical games

A distributed constraint optimization problem (DCOP) is a formalism that captures the rewards and costs of local interactions within a team of agents, each of whom is choosing an individual action. When rapidly selecting a single joint action for a team, we typically solve DCOPs (often using locally optimal algorithms) to generate a single solution. However, in scenarios where a set of joint actions (i.e. a set of assignments to a DCOP) is to be generated, metrics are needed to help appropriately select this set and efficiently allocate resources for the joint actions in the set. To address this need, we introduce k-optimality, a metric that captures the desirable properties of diversity and relative quality of a set of locally-optimal solutions using a parameter that can be tuned based on the level of these properties required. To achieve effective resource allocation for this set, we introduce several upper bounds on the cardinalities of k-optimal joint action sets. These bounds are computable in constant time if we ignore the graph structure, but tighter, graph-based bounds are feasible with higher computation cost. Bounds help choose the appropriate level of k-optimality for settings with fixed resources and help determine appropriate resource allocation for settings where a fixed level of k-optimality is desired. In addition, our bounds for a 1-optimal joint action set for a DCOP also apply to the number of pure-strategy Nash equilibria in a graphical game of noncooperative agents.

[1]  Stephen Fitzpatrick,et al.  Distributed Coordination through Anarchic Optimization , 2003 .

[2]  Makoto Yokoo Why Adding More Constraints Makes a Problem Easier for Hill-climbing Algorithms: Analyzing Landscapes of CSPs , 1997, CP.

[3]  John P. Lewis,et al.  The DEFACTO System: Training Tool for Incident Commanders , 2005, AAAI.

[4]  Sui Ruan,et al.  Patrolling in a Stochastic Environment , 2005 .

[5]  Soraya B. Rana,et al.  Representation Issues in Neighborhood Search and Evolutionary Algorithms , 1998 .

[6]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Solving distributed constraint optimization problems using cooperative mediation , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[7]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Graphical Models for Game Theory , 2001, UAI.

[8]  John Levine,et al.  Generation of Multiple Qualitatively Different Plan Options , 1998, AIPS.

[9]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Adopt: asynchronous distributed constraint optimization with quality guarantees , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Kim Jong Tae,et al.  New efficient clique partitioning algorithms for register-transfer synthesis of data paths , 2002 .

[11]  Weixiong Zhang,et al.  An analysis and application of distributed constraint satisfaction and optimization algorithms in sensor networks , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[12]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Complexity Results about Nash Equilibria , 2002, IJCAI.

[13]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Distributed Algorithms for DCOP: A Graphical-Game-Based Approach , 2004, PDCS.

[14]  Boi Faltings,et al.  A Scalable Method for Multiagent Constraint Optimization , 2005, IJCAI.

[15]  A. McLennan,et al.  Generic 4 x 4 Two Person Games Have at Most 15 Nash Equilibria , 1999 .

[16]  Chaoping Xing,et al.  Coding Theory: A First Course , 2004 .

[17]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  A distributed framework for solving the Multiagent Plan Coordination Problem , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[18]  Nikos A. Vlassis,et al.  Anytime algorithms for multiagent decision making using coordination graphs , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[19]  Noga Alon,et al.  Approximating the independence number via theϑ-function , 1998, Math. Program..