The eager bidder problem: a fundamental problem of DAI and selected solutions

The contract net protocol is a widely used protocol in DAI, as it proved to be a flexible and low communication interaction protocol for task assignment. It is however not clear in which manner agents participating in a contract net should allocate their resources if a large number of contract net protocols is performed concurrently. If the agent allocates too many resources too early, e.g. when making a bid, it may not get any bid accepted and resources have been allocated while other negotiations have come to an end and it is no longer able to make bids for them. If it allocates resources too late, e.g. after being awarded the contract, it may have made bids for more tasks than its resources allow for, possibly all being accepted and resulting in commitments that cannot be kept. We call this dilemma the Eager Bidder Problem. Apart from resource allocation this problem is of further importance as it constitutes the "dual" problem to engaging in multiple simultaneous first-price sealed-bid auctions.We present an ad hoc solution and two more complex strategies for solving this problem. Furthermore, we introduce a new method based on a statistical approach. We describe these mechanisms and how they deal with the concept of commitment at different levels. We conclude with criteria for the decision which of these mechanisms is best selected for a given problem domain.

[1]  Julie A. Adams,et al.  Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence , 2001, AI Mag..

[2]  Victor Lesser,et al.  Negotiation among self-interested computationally limited agents , 1996 .

[3]  Gerhard Weiss,et al.  Multiagent Systems , 1999 .

[4]  D. Norrie,et al.  An Agent-Based Approach for Dynamic Manufacturing Scheduling , 1998 .

[5]  Hamideh Afsarmanesh,et al.  Mutigent perspectives to agile scheduling , 1998, BASYS.

[6]  W. K. Vickery,et al.  Counter-Speculation Auctions and Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[7]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and Gilad Zlotkin Rules of Encounter , 1994 .

[8]  Gerhard Weiss,et al.  Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence , 1999 .

[9]  H. V. Parunak Chapter 10 – Manufacturing Experience with the Contract Net , 1987 .

[10]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Multi-Agent Meeting Scheduling: Preliminary Experimental Results , 1996 .

[11]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  On the design of an adaptive meeting scheduler , 1994, Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications.

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence , 2000 .

[13]  Reid G. Smith,et al.  The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[14]  Klaus Fischer,et al.  Holonic transport scheduling with teletruck , 2000, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[15]  Randall Davis,et al.  Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  A Model for Cooperative Transportation Scheduling , 1995, ICMAS.

[17]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Reasoning about commitments and penalties for coordination between autonomous agents , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[18]  William Vickrey,et al.  Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders , 1961 .

[19]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems , 1993, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[20]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Advantages of a Leveled Commitment Contracting Protocol , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[21]  Claudio Bartolini,et al.  Economic dynamics of agents in multiple auctions , 2001, AGENTS '01.