Advertisement

Constraints

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 25–55 | Cite as

Improved WPM encoding for coalition structure generation under MC-nets

  • Xiaojuan LiaoEmail author
  • Miyuki Koshimura
  • Kazuki Nomoto
  • Suguru Ueda
  • Yuko Sakurai
  • Makoto Yokoo
Article

Abstract

The Coalition Structure Generation (CSG) problem plays an important role in the domain of coalition games. Its goal is to create coalitions of agents so that the global welfare is maximized. To date, Weighted Partial MaxSAT (WPM) encoding has shown high efficiency in solving the CSG problem, which encodes a set of constraints into Boolean propositional logic and employs an off-the-shelf WPM solver to find out the optimal solution. However, in existing WPM encodings, a number of redundant encodings are asserted. This results in additional calculations and correspondingly incurs performance penalty. Against this background, this paper presents an Improved Rule Relation-based WPM (I-RWPM) encoding for the CSG problem, which is expressed by a set of weighted rules in a concise representation scheme called Marginal Contribution net (MC-net). In order to effectively reduce the constraints imposed on encodings, we first identify a subset of rules in an MC-net, referred as a set of freelance rules. We prove that solving the problem made up of all freelance rules can be achieved with a straightforward means without any extra encodings. Thus the set of rules requiring to be encoded is downsized. Next, we improve the encoding of transitive relations among rules. To be specific, compared with the existing rule relation-based encoding that generates transitive relations universally among all rules, I-RWPM only considers the transitivity among rules with particular relationship. In this way, the number of constraints to be encoded can be further decreased. Experiments suggest that I-RWPM significantly outperforms other WPM encodings for solving the same set of problem instances.

Keywords

Weighted partial MaxSAT Coalition structure generation Coalition games 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 61806171), Ministry of Education in China Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant Number 17YJCZH260), JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Numbers JP16K00304, JP17K00307, JP17H00761 and JP18H03299).

References

  1. 1.
    Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Ricca, F. (2015). A maxsat algorithm using cardinality constraints of bounded size. In IJCAI (pp. 2677–2683).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argelich, J., Li, C.M., Many, F., Planes, J. (2016). Max-sat 2016: Eleventh max-sat evaluation. http://maxsat.ia.udl.cat/introduction/.
  3. 3.
    Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H. (2009). Handbook of satisfiability Vol. 185. Amsterdam: IOS press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chalkiadakis, G., Elkind, E., Wooldridge, M. (2011). Computational aspects of cooperative game theory. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 5(6), 1–168.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conitzer, V., & Sandholm, T. (2006). Complexity of constructing solutions in the core based on synergies among coalitions. Artificial Intelligence, 170(6-7), 607–619.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.A. (1971). The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (pp. 151–158). New York : ACM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cruz, F., Espinosa, A., Moure, J.C., Cerquides, J., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Svensson, K., Ramchurn, S.D. (2017). Coalition structure generation problems: optimization and parallelization of the idp algorithm in multicore systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(5), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies, J., & Bacchus, F. (2013). Exploiting the power of mip solvers in maxsat. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 166–181). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elkind, E., Goldberg, L.A., Goldberg, P.W., Wooldridge, M. (2009). A tractable and expressive class of marginal contribution nets and its applications. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 55(4), 362–376.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han, Z., & Poor, H.V. (2009). Coalition games with cooperative transmission: a cure for the curse of boundary nodes in selfish packet-forwarding wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 57(1), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hussin, A., & Fatima, S. (2016). Heuristic methods for optimal coalition structure generation. In Multi-agent systems and agreement technologies (pp. 124–139). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ieong, S., & Shoham, Y. (2005). Marginal contribution nets: a compact representation scheme for coalitional games. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 193–202). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koshimura, M., Zhang, T., Fujita, H., Hasegawa, R. (2012). Qmaxsat: a partial max-sat solver. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 8, 95–100.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Le Berre, D., & Parrain, A. (2010). The sat4j library, release 2.2, system description. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 7, 59–64.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, C., Sycara, K., Scheller-Wolf, A. (2010). Combinatorial coalition formation for multi-item group-buying with heterogeneous customers. Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, C.M., & Manyà, F. (2009). Maxsat, hard and soft constraints. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence & Applications, 185(1), 613–631.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liao, X., Koshimura, M., Fujita, H., Hasegawa, R. (2012). Solving the coalition structure generation problem with maxsat. In 2012 IEEE 24th international conference on Tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), (Vol. 1 pp. 910–915). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liao, X., Koshimura, M., Fujita, H., Hasegawa, R. (2014). Extending maxsat to solve the coalition structure generation problem with externalities based on agent relations. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 97(7), 1812–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liao, X., Koshimura, M., Fujita, H., Hasegawa, R. (2014). Maxsat encoding for mc-net-based coalition structure generation problem with externalities. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 97(7), 1781–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, Y., Zhang, G.F., Su, Z.P., Yue, F., Jiang, J.G. (2016). Using computational intelligence algorithms to solve the coalition structure generation problem in coalitional skill games. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 31(6), 1136–1150.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michalak, T., Marciniak, D., Szamotulski, M., Rahwan, T., Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Jennings, N.R. (2010). A logic-based representation for coalitional games with externalities. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: volume 1-Volume 1, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 125–132).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michalak, T., Rahwan, T., Elkind, E., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R. (2016). A hybrid exact algorithm for complete set partitioning. Artificial Intelligence, 230(C), 14–50.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreno-Centeno, E., & Karp, R.M. (2013). The implicit hitting set approach to solve combinatorial optimization problems with an application to multigenome alignment. Operations Research, 61(2), 453–468.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ohta, N., Conitzer, V., Ichimura, R., Sakurai, Y., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M. (2009). Coalition structure generation utilizing compact characteristic function representations. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (pp. 623–638). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rahwan, T., & Jennings, N.R. (1417). An improved dynamic programming algorithm for coalition structure generation. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 3, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rahwan, T., Michalak, T.P., Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Sroka, J., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R. (2011). Constrained coalition formation. In AAAI, (Vol. 11 pp. 719–725).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rahwan, T., Michalak, T.P., Jennings, N.R. (2012). A hybrid algorithm for coalition structure generation. In AAAI (pp. 1443–1449).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rahwan, T., Michalak, T.P., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R. (2015). Coalition structure generation: a survey. Artificial Intelligence, 229, 139–174.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saikko, P., Berg, J., Järvisalo, M. (2016). Lmhs: a sat-ip hybrid maxsat solver. In International conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (pp. 539–546). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saikko, P., Wallner, J.P., Järvisalo, M. (2016). Implicit hitting set algorithms for reasoning beyond np. In KR (pp. 104–113).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sakai, M., & Nabeshima, H. (2015). Construction of an robdd for a pb-constraint in band form and related techniques for pb-solvers. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 98(6), 1121–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shehory, O., & Kraus, S. (1998). Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artificial intelligence, 101(1-2), 165–200.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skibski, O., Michalewski, H., Nagórko, A., Michalak, T.P., Dowell, A.J., Rahwan, T., Wooldridge, M. (2016). Non-utilitarian coalition structure generation. In ECAI (pp. 1738–1739).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ueda, S., Hasegawa, T., Hashimoto, N., Ohta, N., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M. (2012). Handling negative value rules in mc-net-based coalition structure generation. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 2, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 795–804).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ueda, S., Iwasaki, A., Conitzer, V., Ohta, N., Sakurai, Y., Yokoo, M. (2018). Coalition structure generation in cooperative games with compact representations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-018-9386-z.
  36. 36.
    Yang, G., Esmailpour, A., Cao, Y., Nasser, N. (2016). A novel coalitional structure generation algorithm for interference mitigation in small cell networks. In Global communications conference (GLOBECOM), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1–4). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yeh, D.Y. (1986). A dynamic programming approach to the complete set partitioning problem. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 26(4), 467–474.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chengdu University of TechnologyChengduChina
  2. 2.Kyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Saga UniversitySagaJapan
  4. 4.National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations