Advertisement

A Reputation-Based Game for Tasks Allocation

  • Hamdi Yahyaoui
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 24)

Abstract

We present in this paper a distributed game theoretical model for tasks allocation. During the game, each agent submits a cost for achieving a specific task. Each agent, that is offering a specific task, computes the so-called reputation-based cost, which is the product between the submitted cost and the inverse of the reputation value of the bidding agent. The game winner is the agent which has the minimal reputation-based cost. We show how the use of reputation allows a better allocation of tasks with respect to a conventional allocation where there is no consideration of the reputation as a criteria for allocating tasks.

Keywords

Game Reputation VCG Tasks Allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Archer, A., Tardos, E.: Truthful Mechanisms for One-Parameter Agents. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), Washington, USA, pp. 482–491 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll, T., Grosu, D.: Selfish Multi-User Task Scheduling. In: Proceedings of The Fifth International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Computing, pp. 99–106 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Dunne, P.E., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Lemaître, M., Maudet, N., Padget, J., Phelps, S., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sousa, P.: Issues in Multiagent Resource Allocation. Informatica 30(1), 3–31 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E., Nanavati, A.: Coordination Mechanisms. In: Automata, Languages and Programming: 31st International Colloquium, Turku, Finland, pp. 345–357 (July 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Complexity of Mechanism Design. In: Proceedings of the Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Conference (UAI), Edmonton, Canada, pp. 103–110 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Automated Mechanism Design for a Self-interested Designer. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic Commerce, New York, USA, pp. 132–141 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dash, R., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N.: Trust-Based Mechanism Design. In: Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, New York, USA, pp. 748–755 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feigenbaum, J., Papadimitriou, C., Sami, R., Shenkar, S.: A BGP-based Mechanism for Lowest-Cost Routing. Distributed Computing 18(1), 61–72 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feigenbaum, J., Papadimitriou, C., Shenker, S.: Sharing the Cost of Multicast Transmissions. JCSS: Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63(1), 21–41 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feigenbaum, J., Shenker, S.: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 79, 101–121 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M., Green, J.R.: Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maximilien, E., Singh, M.: Reputation and Endorsement for Web Services. SIGecom Exchanges 3(1), 24–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nisan, N.: Algorithms for Selfish Agents. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Trier, Germany, pp. 1–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nisan, N., Ronen, A.: Algorithmic Mechanism Design. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Atlanta, USA, pp. 129–140 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nisan, N., Ronen, A.: Computationally Feasible VCG Mechanisms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 29, 19–47 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubenstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parkes, D.C.: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Achieving Economic and Computational Efficiency. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandholm, T.: Automated Mechanism Design: A New Application Area for Search Algorithms. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 19–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamdi Yahyaoui
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Computer Science DepartmentKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations