# Greedy Heuristics and Weight-Coded EAs for Multidimensional Knapsack Problems and Multi-Unit Combinatorial Auctions

• Jella Pfeiffer
• Franz Rothlauf
Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP, volume 2007)

## Abstract

The multidimensional knapsack problem (MDKP) is a generalized variant of the $$\mathcal{N}\mathcal{P}$$-complete knapsack problem (KP). The MDKP assumes one knapsack being packed with a number of items xj so that the total profit Σpj of the selected items is maximized. In contrast to the standard KP, each item has m different properties (dimensions) rij (i = 1, ...,m; j = 1, ..., n) consuming ci of the knapsack:
$$maximize{\text{ }}\sum\limits_{j{\text{ = 1}}}^n {p_j x_j }$$
(1)
$$\begin{gathered} subject\ to \sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {r_{ij} x_j} \leqslant c_i ,i = 1,...,m \\ with\; x_j \in \{0,1\} ,j = 1,...,n, p_j ,c_i \in \mathbb{N}, r_{ij} \in \mathbb{N}_0 \end{gathered}$$
(2)
A number of relevant real-world problems can be modelled as MDKPs such as allocation problems, logistics problems, or cutting stock problems [6]. Recently [4], it has been noticed that also the winner determination problem (WDP) in the context of multi-unit combinatorial auctions (MUCA) can be modelled as MDKP. MUCAs are combinatorial auctions (CA) where multiple copies of each good are available. In CAs, bidding is allowed on bundles of goods, which allows bidders to express synergies between those goods they want to obtain. First, the agents submit their bids and then, the auctioneer allocates the goods to the agents so that his revenue is maximized. The revenue is the sum of all submitted bids which are accepted by the auctioneer. This allocation problem is called the WDP1.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

1. 1.
P. C. Chu and J. E. Beasley. A genetic algorithm for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Journal of Heuristics, 4(1):63–86, 1998.
2. 2.
J. E. Gallardo, C. Cotta, and A. J. Fernández. Solving the multidimensional knapsack problem using an evolutionary algorithm hybridized with branch and bound. In Proc. of IWINAC-2005:21–30, 2005.Google Scholar
3. 3.
Y. Guo, A. Lim, B. Rodrigues, and Y. Zhu. A non-exact approach and experiment studies on the combinatorial auction problem. In Proc. of HICSS-38:82–89, 2005.Google Scholar
4. 4.
R. C. Holte. Combinatorial auctions, knapsack problems, and hill-climbing search. In E. Stroulia and S. Matwin, editors, Canadian Conference on AI:57–66. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
5. 5.
H. H. Hoos and C. Boutilier. Solving combinatorial auctions using stochastic local search. In Proc. of AAAI-00:22–29. AAAI, 2000.Google Scholar
6. 6.
H. Kellerer, U. Pferschy, and D. Pisinger. Knapsack Problems. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
7. 7.
G. Raidl. Weight-codings in a genetic algorithm for the multiconstraint knapsack problem. In Proc. of CEC99:596–603. IEEE Press, 1999.Google Scholar
8. 8.
G. Raidl and J. Gottlieb. Empirical analysis of locality, heritability and heuristic bias in evolutionary algorithms: A case study for the multidimensional knapsack problem. ECJ, 13(4):441–475, 2005.Google Scholar
9. 9.
F. Rothlauf and D. E. Goldberg. Redundant representations in evolutionary computation. Evolutionary Computation, 11(4):381–415, 2003.
10. 10.
Y. Sakurai, M. Yokoo, and K. Kamei. An efficient approximate algorithm for winner determination in combinatorial auctions. InProc. of EC-00:30–37, 2000.Google Scholar
11. 11.
J. Thiel and S. Voss. Some experiences on solving multiconstraint zero-one knapsack problems with genetic algorithms. INFOR, 32(4):226–242, 1994.Google Scholar
12. 12.
M. Vasquez and J.-K. Hao. A hybrid approach for the multidimensional 0–1 knapsack problem. In Proc. of IJCAI-01:328–333, 2001.Google Scholar
13. 13.
E. Zurel and N. Nisan. An efficient approximate allocation algorithm for combinatorial auctions. In Proc. of EC-01:125–136. ACM, 2001.Google Scholar