Impact of problem centralization in distributed constraint optimization algorithms

Recent progress in Distributed Constraint Optimization Problems (DCOP) has led to a range of algorithms now available which differ in their amount of problem centralization. Problem centralization can have a significant impact on the amount of computation required by an agent but unfortunately the dominant evaluation metric of "number of cycles" fails to account for this cost. We analyze the relative performance of two recent algorithms for DCOP: OptAPO, which performs partial centralization, and Adopt, which maintains distribution of the DCOP. Previous comparison of Adopt and OptAPO has found that OptAPO requires fewer cycles than Adopt. We extend the cycles metric to define "Cycle-Based Runtime (CBR)" to account for both the amount of computation required in each cycle and the communication latency between cycles. Using the CBR metric, we show that Adopt outperforms OptAPO under a range of communication latencies. We also ask: What level of centralization is most suitable for a given communication latency? We use CBR to create performance curves for three algorithms that vary in degree of centralization, namely Adopt, OptAPO, and centralized Branch and Bound search.

[1]  Victor Lesser,et al.  A mediation-based approach to cooperative, distributed problem solving , 2004 .

[2]  Richard J. Wallace,et al.  Partial Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, IJCAI.

[3]  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..

[4]  Amnon Meisels,et al.  Comparing performance of distributed constraints process ing algorithms , 2002 .

[5]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Open Constraint Optimization , 2003, CP.

[6]  Michel Lemaître,et al.  An Incomplete Method for Solving Distributed Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1997 .

[7]  Al Ward,et al.  Distributed Component-Centered Design as Agent-Based Distributed Constraint Optimization , 1997, AAAI Workshop: Constraints & Agents.

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

[9]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  Partial Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, IJCAI.

[10]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  The Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problem: Formalization and Algorithms , 1998, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[11]  Marius-Calin Silaghi,et al.  Distributed constraint satisfaction and optimization with privacy enforcement , 2004 .

[12]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Exploiting Problem Structure for Distributed Constraint Optimization , 1995, ICMAS.

[13]  Gérard Verfaillie,et al.  An Incomplete Method for Solving Distributed Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1997, AAAI Workshop: Constraints & Agents.

[14]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  An approach to over-constrained distributed constraint satisfaction problems: distributed hierarchical constraint satisfaction , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[15]  Marius-Calin Silaghi,et al.  Distributed constraint satisfaction and optimization with privacy enforcement , 2004, Proceedings. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, 2004. (IAT 2004)..

[16]  P. Meseguer,et al.  On the Evaluation of DisCSP Algorithms ? , 2004 .