A Compact Representation Scheme of Coalitional Games Based on Multi-Terminal Zero-Suppressed Binary Decision Diagrams
Coalitional games, including Coalition Structure Generation (CSG), have been attracting considerable attention from the AI research community. Traditionally, the input of a coalitional game is a black-box function called a characteristic function. Previous studies have found that many problems in coalitional games tend to be computationally intractable in this black-box function representation. Recently, several concise representation schemes for a characteristic function have been proposed. Among them, a synergy coalition group (SCG) has several good characteristics, but its representation size tends to be large compared to other representation schemes.
We propose a new concise representation scheme for a characteristic function based on a Zero-suppressed Binary Decision Diagram (ZDD) and a SCG. We show our scheme (i) is fully expressive, (ii) can be exponentially more concise than the SCG representation, (iii) can solve core-related problems in polynomial time in the number of nodes, and (iv) can solve a CSG problem reasonably well by utilizing a MIP formulation. A Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) has been used as unified infrastructure for representing/manipulating discrete structures in such various domains in AI as data mining and knowledge discovery. Adapting this common infrastructure brings up the opportunity of utilizing abundant BDD resources and cross-fertilization with these fields.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aadithya, K., Michalak, T., Jennings, N.: Representation of Coalitional Games with Algebraic Decision Diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), pp. 1121–1122 (2011)Google Scholar
- 2.Airiau, S., Sen, S.: On the stability of an optimal coalition structure. In: Proceeding of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2010), pp. 203–208 (2010)Google Scholar
- 6.Berghammer, R., Bolus, S.: Problem Solving on Simple Games via BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computation Social Choice, COMSOC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
- 9.Elkind, E., Goldberg, L.A., Goldberg, P.W., Wooldridge, M.: A tractable and expressive class of marginal contribution nets and its applications. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), pp. 1007–1014 (2008)Google Scholar
- 10.Engel, Y., Wellman, M.P.: Generalized value decomposition and structured multiattribute auctions. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2007), pp. 227–236 (2007)Google Scholar
- 13.Ieong, S., Shoham, Y.: Marginal contribution nets: a compact representation scheme for coalitional games. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2005), pp. 193–202 (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Knuth, D.: The art of computer programming 4, Fascicle 1 (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Loekito, E., Bailey, J.: Fast mining of high dimensional expressive contrast patterns using zero-suppressed binary decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2006), pp. 307–316 (2006)Google Scholar
- 16.Minato, S.: Zero-suppressed bdds for set manipulation in combinatorial problems. In: Proceedings of the 30th Design Automation Conference (DAC 1993), pp. 272–277 (1993)Google Scholar
- 20.Shrot, T., Aumann, Y., Kraus, S.: On agent types in coalition formation problems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), pp. 757–764 (2010)Google Scholar