Coalition Games: A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor SIUC A 2 5 3 4 1 6 C B.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Applications of TU Games Vito Fragnelli University of Eastern Piedmont Seminario Itinerante Alessandria 18 March 2002 Outline Cost Allocation Problems.
Advertisements

Characterizing distribution rules for cost sharing games Raga Gopalakrishnan Caltech Joint work with Jason R. Marden & Adam Wierman.
A Short Tutorial on Cooperative Games
Goals Become familiar with current research topics
Manipulation, Control, and Beyond: Computational Issues in Weighted Voting Games Edith Elkind (U. of Southampton) Based on joint work with: Y.Bachrach,
The Voting Problem: A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor SIUC.
Effort Games and the Price of Myopia Michael Zuckerman Joint work with Yoram Bachrach and Jeff Rosenschein.
Algorithmic aspects of the core in cooperative games over graphs Vangelis Markakis Athens University of Economics and Business Dept. of Informatics Joint.
Negotiating a stable distribution of the payoff among agents may prove challenging. The issue of coalition formation has been investigated extensively,
Negotiation A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor SIUC.
Christos H. Papadimitriou with Jon Kleinberg and P. Raghavan Outline Privacy Collaborative Game Theory Clustering.
1 Analysis of Topographical Leverage- driven Capacity Trading in Internet Storage Infrastructures Anna Ye Du (SUNY, Buffalo), Xianjun Geng (UW, Seattle),
Cooperative/coalitional game theory Vincent Conitzer
Cooperative Weakest Link Games Yoram Bachrach, Omer Lev, Shachar Lovett, Jeffrey S. Rosenschein & Morteza Zadimoghaddam CoopMAS 2013 St. Paul, Minnesota.
Yoram Bachrach Jeffrey S. Rosenschein November 2007.
Overlapping Coalition Formation: Charting the Tractability Frontier Y. Zick, G. Chalkiadakis and E. Elkind (submitted to AAMAS 2012)
Cooperative/coalitional game theory A composite of slides taken from Vincent Conitzer and Giovanni Neglia (Modified by Vicki Allan) 1.
Prisoners Dilemma rules 1.Binding agreements are not possible. Note in Prisoners dilemma, if binding agreements were possible, there would be no dilemma.
Annexations and Merging in Weighted Voting Games: The Extent of Susceptibility of Power Indices by Ramoni Lasisi Vicki Allan.
Taxation and Stability in Cooperative Games Yair Zick Maria Polukarov Nick R. Jennings AAMAS 2013.
The Communication Complexity of Coalition Formation Among Autonomous Agents A. D. Procaccia & J. S. Rosenschein.
Cooperative/coalitional game theory A composite of slides taken from Vincent Conitzer and Giovanni Neglia (Modified by Vicki Allan) 1.
The Allocation of Value For Jointly Provided Services By P. Linhart, R. Radner, K. G. Ramkrishnan, R. Steinberg Telecommunication Systems, Vol. 4, 1995.
Path Disruption Games (Cooperative Game Theory meets Network Security) Yoram Bachrach, Ely Porat Microsoft Research Cambridge.
Computing Shapley Values, Manipulating Value Distribution Schemes, and Checking Core Membership in Multi-Issue Domains Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm.
Applications of TU Games Vito Fragnelli University of Eastern Piedmont Politecnico di Torino 24 April 2002 Outline Cost Allocation Problems Infrastructure.
Coalition Structures in Weighted Voting Games Georgios Chalkiadakis Edith Elkind Nicholas R. Jennings.
Arbitrators in Overlapping Coalition Formation Games
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Distributed Rational Decision Making Sections By Tibor Moldovan.
Cooperative/coalitional game theory A composite of slides taken from Vincent Conitzer and Giovanni Neglia (Modified by Vicki Allan) 1.
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Cooperative/coalitional game theory A composite of slides taken from Vincent Conitzer and Giovanni Neglia (Modified by Vicki Allan) 1.
Computational aspects of stability in weighted voting games Edith Elkind (NTU, Singapore) Based on joint work with Leslie Ann Goldberg, Paul W. Goldberg,
The Agencies Method for Coalition Formation in Experimental Games John Nash (University of Princeton) Rosemarie Nagel (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, ICREA,
Raga Gopalakrishnan University of Colorado at Boulder Sean D. Nixon (University of Vermont) Jason R. Marden (University of Colorado at Boulder) Stable.
The Core MIT , Fall Lecture Outline  Coalitional Games and the Core The non-transferable utility ( “ NTU ” ) formulation The transferable.
Using Dialogue Games to Form Coalitions with Self-Interested Agents Luke Riley Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool
Computational problems associated with a solution concept Why we need the compact representation of coalitional games Compactly-represented coalitional.
1 Risk Based Negotiation of Service Agent Coalitions Bastian Blankenburg, Matthias KluschDFKI Minghua He, Nick JenningsUniversity of Southampton.
Lecture 4: N-person non zero-sum games
Bounding the Cost of Stability in Games with Restricted Interaction Reshef Meir, Yair Zick, Edith Elkind and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein COMSOC 2012 (to appear)
CIA Annual Meeting LOOKING BACK…focused on the future.
Standard and Extended Form Games A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor, SIUC.
Aim: How do we find the probability with two outcomes? Do Now: John takes a multiple choice test on a topic for which he has learned nothing. Each question.
Sets --- A set is a collection of objects. Sets are denoted by A, B, C, … --- The objects in the set are called the elements of the set. The elements are.
Utilities and MDP: A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor SIUC.
Complexity of Determining Nonemptiness of the Core Vincent Conitzer, Tuomas Sandholm Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University.
Cooperation, Power and Conspiracies Yoram Bachrach.
11 The Cost of Stability in Network Flow Games Ezra Resnick Yoram Bachrach Jeffrey S. Rosenschein.
The Shapley Value The concept of the core is useful as a measure of stability. As a solution concept, it presents a set of imputations without distinguishing.
GAME THEORY APPLIED TO GENE EXPRESSION ANALYSIS F. Ascione, R. Liuzzi, R. D’Apolito, A. Carciati, C. Taddei.
Cooperative Games Based on the book and slides by Chalkiadakis, Elkind and Wooldridge.
Optimization and Stability in Games with Restricted Interactions Reshef Meir, Yair Zick and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein CoopMAS 2012.
Coalitional Games on “Sparse” Social Networks Edith Elkind University of Oxford.
Dynamic Weighted Voting Games Edith Elkind Dmitrii Pasechnik Yair Zick AAMAS 2013.
Computing Shapley values, manipulating value division schemes, and checking core membership in multi-issue domains Vincent Conitzer, Tuomas Sandholm Computer.
Cooperative Games Based on the book and slides by Chalkiadakis, Elkind and Wooldridge.
Complexity of Determining Nonemptiness of the Core
Information, Control and Games
CPS Cooperative/coalitional game theory
Economics and Computation Week 6: Assignment games
Combinations Practical Applications
ОПЕРАТИВНА ПРОГРАМА “ИНОВАЦИИ И КОНКУРЕНТОСПОСОБНОСТ“ „Подобряване на производствения капацитет в МСП“
Academic Culture of Athletic Programs
Solving Equations 3x+7 –7 13 –7 =.
The Agencies Method for Coalition Formation in Experimental Games
12.5 Practical Applications
8 Core Steps of success: I.Step:1 : DREAM SETTING: II. Step: 2 : LIST MAKING : IV. Step: 4 : SHOW THE PLAN: III. Step: 3 : INVITATION: V. Step: 5 : FOLLOW.
U A B II III I IV 94.
Presentation transcript:

Coalition Games: A Lesson in Multiagent System Based on Jose Vidal’s book Fundamentals of Multiagent Systems Henry Hexmoor SIUC A 2 5 3 4 1 6 C B

Coalition game _ characteristic from game Agents vector of utilities one for each agent payoffs for teaming V(s) – characteristic function / Value function s – set of agents v(S)  R is defined for every S that is a subset of A. The characteristic function v(S) is also sometimes simply referred to as the characteristic function value function for the coalitions.

Transferable Utility Players can exchange utilities in a team V(s) (1) i (1 2) ii (1 3) iii (2 3) iv ( 1 2 3 ) v Players can exchange utilities in a team is feasible if there exists a set of coalitions T = Where Are there a disjoint set of coalitions that add up to T = Coalition structure Coalition games they can represent a task allocation problem where a set of tasks has to be performed by a set of agents, subsets of whom can sometimes improve their performance by joining together to perform a task, they can represent a sensor network problems where the sensors must join together in subgroups to further refine their readings or relay important information, or they can represent workflow scheduling systems where agents must form groups to handle incoming workflows.

Feasibility property Nothing is lost by merging coalitions is not feasible is feasible S V(S) (1) 2 (2) (3) 4 (1 3) 7 ( 2 3 ) 8 ( 1 2 3 ) 9 An outcome u is feasible if we can find a disjoint set of coalitions whose values are as much as that in u, so we can payoff u with v. u = {5, 5, 5} is a set of payoffs of 5 for each of three persons. This is not feasible since there is no way to divide the agents into subsets such that they can all get their utility. u = {2, 4, 3} is feasible because the coalition structures (1)(23), (2)(13), and (123) can satisfy it. u = {2, 4, 3} does have a problem in that in it agent 3 is getting an utility of 3 while we have that v((3)) = 4. Agent 3 could defect any one of the three coalition structures we found, join the coalition (3), and get a higher utility than he currently has. This outcome thus seems unstable.

Super Additive property Nothing is lost by merging coalitions

Stability Feasibility does not imply stability. Defections are possible. is stable if x subset of agents gets paid more, as a whole, than they get paid in . An outcome u is stable if no subset of agents gets paid more, as a whole, than what they get paid in u. Stability is a nice property because it means that the agents do not have an incentive to go off into their own coalition. Our first solution concept, the core, refers to all the outcomes that are stable.

The Core An Outcome is in the core if outcome > coalition payoff It is stable 1. The utility the agents receive in outcome u is bigger than those of any coalition, for the agents in the coalition. In other words, that there is no coalition S whose v(S) is bigger than the sum of payments the agents in S get under u. 2. The second condition merely checks that the total utility we are giving out is not more than what is coming in via v(·).

Core: Example 1 is in the core is not in the core S V(S) (1) 1 (2) 2 (3) (1 2) 4 ( 1 3) 3 (2 3 ) (1 2 3) 6 is in the core is not in the core {2, 2, 2} is in the core because it is feasible and there is no subset of agents S with a v(S) that is bigger than what they could get in this outcome. {2, 2, 3} is not in the core because it is not feasible. This outcome adds up to 7 and there is no coalition structure that adds up to 7. {1, 2, 2} is not in the core because agents 1 and 2 are getting a total of 3 while if they formed the coalition (12) they would get a utility of 4. We like the core because we know that any solution that is in the core cannot be improved by having any of the 2A subsets of agents form a coalition of higher value than they are getting now. It is a very stable solution. Unfortunately, there are many games with empty cores.

The Core: Example 2: An empty core S V(S) (1) (2) (3) (1 2) 10 ( 1 3) (2 3 ) (1 2 3) Try to find an outcome in the core for this example. You will see that every outcome is blocked by some other outcome.

Core: Example 3 S V(S) () (1) 1 (2) 3 (1 2) 6 (1) 1 (2) 3 (1 2) 6 The core is not and there are often a lot of outcomes in the core. For example, in figure any outcome u = {x, y, z} where x+y+z <= 6 is in the core because v((123)) = 6. That is, if the agents decide to form the grand coalition then they must still decide how to divide the 6 units of utility.

The Shapley Value (Fairness) Given an ordering of the agents in I, we denote the set of agents that appear before i in The Shapley value is defined as the marginal contribution of an agent to its set of predecessors, averaged on all permutations

Shapley value Example F({1, 2}, 1) = ½ · (v(1) − v() + v(21) − v(2)) V(S) () (1) 1 (2) 3 (1 2) 6 F({1, 2}, 1) = ½ · (v(1) − v() + v(21) − v(2)) =1/2· (1 − 0 + 6 − 3) = 2 F({1, 2}, 2) = ½ · (v(12) − v(1) + v(2) − v()) =1/2· (6-1+3 -0) = 4 1. In our example the payments of 4 and 2 add up to 6 which is the same value we get in the grand coalition (12). 2. A feature of the Shapley value is that it always exists and is unique. Thus, we do not have to worry about coordination mechanism to choose among different payments. 3. The Shapley value might not be in the core, even for cases where the core exists. This is a potential problem as it means that the resulting payments might not be stable and some agents might choose to leave the coalition in order to receive a higher payment on a different coalition.

Relaxing the Core… The core is often empty… Minimizing the total temptation felt by the agents called the nucleolus. A coalition S is more tempting the higher its value is over what the agents gets in . This is known as the excess. A coalition’s excess e(S) is v(S) - Σi in Su(i) A coalition S has a positive excess, given u, if the agents in S can get more from v(S) than they can from u. The more they can get from S the higher the excess.

Shapley (1953,1967,1971) Aumann & Dreze (1974) References Shapley (1953,1967,1971) Aumann & Dreze (1974)