The Quality of Equilibria for Set Packing Games

We introduce set packing games as an abstraction of situations in which $n$ selfish players select subsets of a finite set of indivisible items, and analyze the quality of several equilibria for this class of games. Assuming that players are able to approximately play equilibrium strategies, we show that the total quality of the resulting equilibrium solutions is only moderately suboptimal. Our results are tight bounds on the price of anarchy for three equilibrium concepts, namely Nash equilibria, subgame perfect equilibria, and an equilibrium concept that we refer to as $k$-collusion Nash equilibrium

Tighter Bounds on the Inefficiency Ratio of Stable Equilibria in Load Balancing Games

In this paper we study the inefficiency ratio of stable equilibria in load balancing games introduced by Asadpour and Saberi [3]. We prove tighter lower and upper bounds of 7/6 and 4/3, respectively. This improves over the best known bounds in problem (19/18 and 3/2, respectively). Equivalently, the results apply to the question of how well the optimum for the $L_2$ -norm can approximate the $L_{\infty}$-norm (makespan) in identical machines scheduling

A Parameterisation of Algorithms for Distributed Constraint Optimisation via Potential Games

This paper introduces a parameterisation of learning algorithms for distributed constraint optimisation problems (DCOPs). This parameterisation encompasses many algorithms developed in both the computer science and game theory literatures. It is built on our insight that when formulated as noncooperative games, DCOPs form a subset of the class of potential games. This result allows us to prove convergence properties of algorithms developed in the computer science literature using game theoretic methods. Furthermore, our parameterisation can assist system designers by making the pros and cons of, and the synergies between, the various DCOP algorithm components clear

Pilot, Rollout and Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods for Job Shop Scheduling

Greedy heuristics may be attuned by looking ahead for each possible choice, in an approach called the rollout or Pilot method. These methods may be seen as meta-heuristics that can enhance (any) heuristic solution, by repetitively modifying a master solution: similarly to what is done in game tree search, better choices are identified using lookahead, based on solutions obtained by repeatedly using a greedy heuristic. This paper first illustrates how the Pilot method improves upon some simple well known dispatch heuristics for the job-shop scheduling problem. The Pilot method is then shown to be a special case of the more recent Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) methods: Unlike the Pilot method, MCTS methods use random completion of partial solutions to identify promising branches of the tree. The Pilot method and a simple version of MCTS, using the $\varepsilon$-greedy exploration paradigms, are then compared within the same framework, consisting of 300 scheduling problems of varying sizes with fixed-budget of rollouts. Results demonstrate that MCTS reaches better or same results as the Pilot methods in this context.Comment: Learning and Intelligent OptimizatioN (LION'6) 7219 (2012