Token Based Resource Sharing in Heterogeneous Multi-agent Teams

  • Yang Xu
  • Paul Scerri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5925)


In a cooperative heterogeneous multiagent team, distributed agents are required to harmonize activities and make the best use of resources to achieve their common goal. Agents are required to share their resource with very a few of the teammates who need it but with a limited view of the team, they do not know who they are. In this paper, we put forward our resource sharing algorithm for a large heterogeneous team. It does not require a complete view of the team or depend on excessive communication. Agents only make use of the knowledge from allocating tasks or sharing the other resources. The key is that we use influence diagram to model how agents may predict what the other agents are doing from their limited information received. By utilizing the relevances between tasks and resources or pairs of resources, We have setup a local probability model so that agents can reason in the uncertainty and can efficiently share the resource within a few hops to its target. Based on this model, we have two additional designs of dynamic threshold and local decision exchange model so that agents can enhance their local decisions and greatly increase the resource sharing performance. Our experiment results show this system design is feasible for resource sharing in a large heterogeneous multiagent team.


Resource sharing Teamwork Local decision model Uncertainty Heuristic reasoning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dolgov, D., Durfee, E.: Resource allocation among agents with preferences induced by factored MDPs. In: The fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 297–304 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sotomayor, M.: A Simultaneous Descending Bid Auction for Multiple Items and Unitary Demand. Revista Brasileira de Economia Rio de Janeiro 56(3), 497–510 (2002)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: Negotiating socially optimal allocations of resources - an overview. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 25 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersson, M., Sandholm, T.: Contract type sequencing for reallocative negotiation. In: The 20th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 2000), pp. 154–160. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chavez, A., Moukas, A., Maes, P.: Challenger: A multi-agent system for distributed resource allocation. In: 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 323–331. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: On optimal outcomes of negotiations over resources. In: The 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 177–184 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lematre, M., Verfaillie, G., Bataille, N.: Exploiting a common property resource under a fairness constraint: A case study. In: The 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), pp. 206–211 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahajan, R., Gupta, A.: Scalable Contract Net Based Resource Allocation Strategies for Grids. In: 9th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, pp. 25–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Passarella, A., Delmastro, F., Conti, M.: XScribe: a stateless, cross-layer approach to P2P multicast in multi-hop ad hoc networks. In: Decentralized Resource Sharing in Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 6–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zahn, T., Wittenburg, G., Schiller, J.: Towards efficient range queries in mobile ad hoc networks using DHTs. In: Decentralized Resource Sharing in Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 72–74 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, Y., Scerri, P., Sycara, K., Lewis, M.: Comparing market and token-based coordination. In: The fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1113–1115 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu, Y., Lewis, M., Sycara, K., Scerri, P.: Information sharing in very large teams. In: AAMAS 2004 Workshop on Challenges in Coordination of Large Scale MultiAgent Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pynadath, D., Tambe, M.: The communicative multiagent team decision problem: analyzing teamwork theories and models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16, 389–423 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker, K., Sycara, K., Pannu, A., Williamson, M.: Designing behaviors for information agents. In: The First International Conference on Autonomous Agents (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Delgado, J., Pujol, J., Sanguesa, R.: Emergence of coordination in scale-free networks. In: Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, pp. 131–138 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milgram, S.: The small world problem. Psychology Today 22, 61–67 (1967)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scerri, P., Farinelli, A., Okamoto, S., Tambe, M.: Allocating Tasks in Extreme Teams. In: The fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yang Xu
    • 1
  • Paul Scerri
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations