Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees
Artificial Intelligence
Customer coalitions in the electronic marketplace
AGENTS '00 Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Autonomous agents
Brain Meets Brawn: Why Grid and Agents Need Each Other
AAMAS '04 Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1
Generating Coalition Structures with Finite Bound from the Optimal Guarantees
AAMAS '04 Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations
International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications
Coalition Structure Generation in Task-Based Settings Based on Cardinality Structure
Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems
An anytime coalition restructuring algorithm in an open environment
ICIC'07 Proceedings of the intelligent computing 3rd international conference on Advanced intelligent computing theories and applications
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Coalition formation is a key topic in multiagent systems. One may prefer a coalition structure that maximizes the sum of the values of the coalitions, but often the number of coalition structures is too large to allow exhaustive search for the optimal one. But then, can the coalition structure found via a partial search be guaranteed to be within a bound from optimum? Sandholm et al. showed that it suffices to search the lowest two levels of the coalition structure graph in order to establish a worst case bound K(n). Dang et al. presented an algorithm that takes a step further to search those coalition structures whose biggest coalition's cardinality is greater than or equal to ⌈n(k − 1)/(k + 1)⌉, which is the best result known so far. Against this background, this paper reports on a novel anytime algorithm based on cardinality structure that only have to take a step further to search those coalition structures whose cardinality structure is in the CCS(n, b). Consequently, the algorithm reported in this paper is obviously better than that of Sandholm et al. (up to 1035 times faster when n=100, K=2) and Dang et al (up to 1018 times faster when n=100, K=3).