Formalizing admissibility criteria in coalition formation among goal-directed agents

This work studies how goal-directed agents can form profitable coalitions. A coalition is formed when some agents agree to cooperate for the achievement of a shared goal or to exchange with each other the achievement of their own goals. We define two criteria of admissibility that establish which coalitions can be formed under the assumption that agents are self-interested. The first admissibility criterion, the do-ut-des property, formalizes a notion of reciprocity that, informally, can be described as “I give something only if I obtain something else in exchange”. The second admissibility criterion, the composition property, requires that if two coalition formation processes do not effect each other, then they will managed separately. So, roughly, the composition property describes the preference of the agents to form small coalitions. This attitude can be justified by considering that a coalition formation process usually becomes more costly and it has less chance to succeed when the number of the agents involved in it increases. We compare the do-ut-des property, which is a qualitative criterion of admissibility, with the quantitative approach developed in Cooperative Game Theory. In particular, the do-ut-des property can be used as a qualitative methods to restrict the search space of a quantitative criterion of admissibility, we called the q-do-ut-des property, which is even more restrictive than the well-known notion of core. Finally, we define a modal logic to reason about which goals a group of agents can assure if they collaborate. With respect to similar modal logics, as Alternating Time Temporal Logic or Coalition Logic of Propositional Control, our logic enables to explicitly refer to the actions that the agents have to perform in order to achieve a certain state of affairs.

[1]  Guido Boella,et al.  A Game Theoretic Approach to Norms and Agents , 2001 .

[2]  Allen Newell The Knowledge Level (Presidential Address) , 1980, AI Mag..

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about action and cooperation , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[4]  Robert W. Rosenthal,et al.  Cooperative games in effectiveness form , 1972 .

[5]  Karen S. Cook,et al.  Generalized Exchange and Social Dilemmas , 1993 .

[6]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[7]  R. Emerson Power-Dependence Relations , 1962, Power in Modern Societies.

[8]  Guido Boella,et al.  Attributing mental attitudes to normative systems , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[9]  James A. McHugh,et al.  Algorithmic Graph Theory , 1986 .

[10]  Liliana Ardissono,et al.  Interaction with Web Services in the AdaptiveWeb , 2004, AH.

[11]  Stefan Tai,et al.  The next step in Web services , 2003, CACM.

[12]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Roger V. Gould Collective Action and Network Structure , 1993 .

[14]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Negotiation and Task Sharing Among Autonomous Agents in Cooperative Domains , 1989, IJCAI.

[15]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the logic of cooperation and propositional control , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Yves Demazeau,et al.  A Social Reasoning Mechanism Based On Dependence Networks , 1997, ECAI.

[17]  R. BurchJ.,et al.  Symbolic model checking , 1992 .

[18]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[19]  C. Castelfranchi The Micro-Macro Constitution of Power , 2003 .

[20]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  Dynamic Logic , 2007, The KeY Approach.

[21]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Compromise in Negotiation: Exploiting Worth Functions over States , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Yves Demazeau,et al.  On Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems , 2001, Inteligencia Artif..

[23]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Coalitions Among Computationally Bounded Agents , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Jaime Simão Sichman,et al.  Dependence Graphs: Dependence Within and Between Groups , 2002, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[25]  A. Tarski A LATTICE-THEORETICAL FIXPOINT THEOREM AND ITS APPLICATIONS , 1955 .

[26]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Depth-First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms , 1972, SIAM J. Comput..

[27]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Methods for Task Allocation via Agent Coalition Formation , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[28]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION FOR SHARING A RESOURCE 
 BETWEEN TWO AGENTS * , 2003, Comput. Intell..

[29]  Guido Boella,et al.  Power and dependence relations in groups of agents , 2004 .

[30]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[31]  Onn Shehory,et al.  Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees , 2022 .

[32]  George Gargov,et al.  A Note on Boolean Modal Logic , 1990 .

[33]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  The theory of social functions: challenges for computational social science and multi-agent learning , 2001, Cognitive Systems Research.

[34]  Michael Luck,et al.  A Formal View of Social Dependence Networks , 1995, DAI.

[35]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[36]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Distributed Problem Solving and Multi-Agent Systems: Comparisons and Examples* , 1994 .

[37]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  How to decide what to do? , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[38]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[39]  Sérgio Vale Aguiar Campos,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking , 1993, CAV.

[40]  Marc Pauly,et al.  A Modal Logic for Coalitional Power in Games , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[41]  L. Shapley,et al.  PURE COMPETITION, COALITIONAL POWER, AND FAIR DIVISION* , 1969 .

[42]  M. Wooldridge,et al.  Preferences in Qualitative Coalitional Games , 2004 .

[43]  R. Aumann The core of a cooperative game without side payments , 1961 .

[44]  Stef Tijs,et al.  Strong equilibria in claim games corresponding to convex games , 1998, Int. J. Game Theory.

[45]  Jaime Simão Sichman,et al.  Multi-agent dependence by dependence graphs , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[46]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage , 1999, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[47]  Yde Venema,et al.  Dynamic Logic by David Harel, Dexter Kozen and Jerzy Tiuryn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hardback: ISBN 0–262–08289–6, $50, xv + 459 pages , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[48]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Founding Agents' "Autonomy" on Dependence Theory , 2000, ECAI.

[49]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: initial investigations with a new game , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[50]  Matteo Sereno,et al.  Performance Modeling of P2P File Sharing Applications , 2005, 2005 Workshop on Techniques, Methodologies and Tools for Performance Evaluation of Complex Systems (FIRB-PERF'05).

[51]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Cooperation, Knowledge, and Time: Alternating-time Temporal Epistemic Logic and its Applications , 2003, Stud Logica.

[52]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Leveled-Commitment Contracting: A Backtracking Instrument for Multiagent Systems , 2002, AI Mag..

[53]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the computational complexity of qualitative coalitional games , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[54]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Dealing with Concurrent Actions in Modal Action Logics , 1998, ECAI.

[55]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Power, Dependence and Stability in Multiagent Plans , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[56]  Eduardo Alonso How individuals negotiate societies , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[57]  B. Peleg Effectivity functions, game forms, games, and rights , 1997 .

[58]  Guido Boella,et al.  A game theoretic approach to contracts in multiagent systems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[59]  Guido Boella,et al.  Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[60]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Algorithms of distributed task allocation for cooperative agents , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[61]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Towards a Theory of Cooperative Problem Solving , 1994, MAAMAW.

[62]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Mechanism Design for Automated Negotiation, and its Application to Task Oriented Domains , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[63]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[64]  M. Klusch,et al.  A Polynomial Kernel-Oriented Coalition Algorithm for RationalInformation Agents , 2001 .

[65]  Guido Boella,et al.  An Abstraction from Power to Coalition Structures , 2004, ECAI.

[66]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[67]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  MOCHA: Modularity in Model Checking , 1998, CAV.

[68]  Guido Boella,et al.  Power and dependence relations in groups of agents , 2004, Proceedings. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, 2004. (IAT 2004)..

[69]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[70]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, KR.

[71]  Ingmar Pörn,et al.  The logic of power , 1970 .

[72]  Stef Tijs,et al.  Link formation in cooperative situations , 1998, Int. J. Game Theory.

[73]  Marc Pauly On the Complexity of Coalitional Reasoning , 2002, IGTR.

[74]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Towards Flexible Teamwork , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[75]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .