Solution Sets for DCOPs and Graphical Games: Metrics and Bounds

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

[2]  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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19]  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..