Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Distributed Lagrangean Relaxation Protocol for the Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem Katsutoshi Hirayama (平山 勝敏) Faculty of Maritime Sciences (海事科学部)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Distributed Lagrangean Relaxation Protocol for the Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem Katsutoshi Hirayama (平山 勝敏) Faculty of Maritime Sciences (海事科学部)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Distributed Lagrangean Relaxation Protocol for the Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem Katsutoshi Hirayama (平山 勝敏) Faculty of Maritime Sciences (海事科学部) Kobe University (神戸大学) hirayama@maritime.kobe-u.ac.jp

2 Summary  This work is on the distributed combinatorial optimization rather than the distributed constraint satisfaction.  I present the Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem (a distributed formulation of the Generalized Assignment Problem) a distributed lagrangean relaxation protocol for the GMAP a “ noise ” strategy that makes the agents (in the protocol) quickly agree on a feasible solution with reasonably good quality

3 Outline  Motivation distributed task assignment  Problem Generalized Assignment Problem Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem Lagrangean Relaxation Problem  Solution protocol Overview Primal/Dual Problem Convergence to Feasible Solution  Experiments  Conclusion

4 Motivation: distributed task assignment  Example 1: transportation domain A set of companies, each having its own transportation jobs. Each is deliberating whether to perform a job by myself or outsource it to another company. Seek for an optimal assignment that satisfies their individual resource constraints (#s of trucks). Kobe Kyoto Tokyo job1 job2job3 Company1 has {job1} and 4 trucks Company2 has {job2,job3} and 3 trucks profittrucks Co.1 job152 job262 job351 Co.2 job142 job222 job322

5 Motivation: distributed task assignment  Example 2: info gathering domain A set of research divisions, each having its own interests in journal subscription. Each is deliberating whether to subscribe a journal by myself or outsource it to another division. Seek for an optimal subscription that does not exceed their individual budgets.  Example 3: review assignment domain A set of PCs, each having its own review assignment Each is deliberating whether to review a paper by myself or outsource it to another PC/colleague. Seek for an optimal assignment that does not exceed their individual maximally-acceptable numbers of papers.

6 Problem: generalized assignment problem (GAP)  These problems can be formulated as the GAP in a centralized context. job1job2job3 Company1 (agent1) Company2 (agent2) (5,2) (4,2) (6,2) (2,2) (5,1) (2,2) 4 3 (profit, resource requirement) Assignment constraint: each job is assigned to exactly one agent. Knapsack constraint: the total resource requirement of each agent does not exceed its available resource capacity. 01 constraint: each job is assigned or not assign to an agent.

7 Problem: generalized assignment problem (GAP) max. s. t.  The GAP instance can be described as the integer program. GAP: (as the integer program) However, the problem must be dealt by the super-coordinator. x ij takes 1 if agent i is to perform job j; 0 otherwise. assignment constraints knapsack constraints

8 Problem: generalized assignment problem (GAP)  Drawbacks of the centralized formulation Cause the security/privacy issue  Ex. the strategic information of a company would be revealed. Need to maintain the super-coordinator (computational server) Distributed formulation of the GAP: generalized mutual assignment problem (GMAP)

9 Problem: generalized mutual assignment problem (GMAP)  The agents (not the supper-coordinator) solve the problem while communicating with each other. job1job2job3 Company1 (agent1)Company2 (agent2) 4 3

10 Problem: generalized mutual assignment problem (GMAP)  Assumption: The recipient agent has the right to decide whether it will undertake a job or not. job1 4 3 job2job3job1job2job3 Sharing the assignment constraints (profit, resource requirement) Company1 (agent1)Company2 (agent2) (5,2)(6,2)(5,1)(4,2)(2,2)

11 Problem: generalized mutual assignment problem (GMAP)  The GMAP can also be described as a set of integer programs max. s. t. max. s. t. Agent1 decides x 11, x 12, x 13 Agent2 decides x 21, x 22, x 23 Sharing the assignment constraints GMP 1 GMP 2 : variables of others

12 Problem: lagrangean relaxation problem  By dualizing the assignment constraints, the followings are obtained. max. s. t. max. s. t. Agent1 decides x 11, x 12, x 13 Agent2 decide x 21, x 22, x 23 LGMP 1 (μ)LGMP 2 (μ) : variables of others : lagrangean multiplier vector

13 Problem: lagrangean relaxation problem  Two important features: The sum of the optimal values of {LGMP k (μ) | k in all of the agents} provides an upper bound for the optimal value of the GAP. If all of the optimal solutions to {LGMP k (μ) | k in all of the agents} satisfy the assignment constraints for some values of μ, then these optimal solutions constitute an optimal solution to the GAP. LGMP 1 (μ)LGMP 2 (μ) Opt.Value1Opt.Value2 Opt.Sol1Opt.Sol2 solve GAP + Opt.Value Opt.Sol (if Opt.Sol1 and Opt.Sol2 satisfy the assignment constraints) =

14 Solution protocol: overview  The agents alternate the following in parallel while performing P2P communication until all of the assignment constraints are satisfied. Each agent k solves LGMP k (μ), the primal problem, using a knapsack solution algorithm. The agents exchange solutions with each other. Each agent k finds appropriate values for μ (solves the (lagrangean) dual problem) using the subgradient optimization method. Agent1Agent2Agent3 sharing Solve dual & primal prlms exchange time

15 Solution protocol: primal problem  Primal problem: LGMP k (μ) Knapsack problem Solved by an exact method (i.e., an optimal solution is needed) max. s. t. LGMP 1 (μ) job1 agent1 4 job2job3 (profit, resource requirement)

16 Solution protocol: dual problem  Dual problem The problem of finding appropriate values for μ Solved by the subgradient optimization method  Subgradient G j for the assignment constraint on job j  Updating rule for μ j : step length at time t

17 Solution protocol: example When job1 agent1 4 job2job3 3 job1job2job3 agent2 Select {job1,job2} Select {job1} and Therefore, in the next, Note: the agents involved in job j must assign μ j to a common value.

18 Solution protocol: convergence to feasible solution  A common value to μ j ensures the optimality when the protocol stops. However, there is no guarantee that the protocol will eventually stop.  You could force the protocol to terminate at some point to get a satisfactory solution, but no feasible solution had been found. In a centralized case, lagrangean heuristics are usually devised to transform the “ best ” infeasible solution into a feasible solution. In a distributed case, such the “ best ” infeasible solution is inaccessible, since it belongs to global information.  I introduce a simple strategy to make the agents quickly agree on a feasible solution with reasonably good quality. Noise strategy: let agents assign slightly different values to μ j

19 Solution protocol: convergence to feasible solution  Noise strategy The updating rule for μ j is replaced by : random variable whose value is uniformly distributed over This rule diversifies agents ’ views on the value of μ j, and being able to break an oscillation in which agents repeat “ clustering and dispersing ” around some job. For δ≠0, the optimality when the protocol stops does not hold. For δ=0, the optimality when the protocol stops does hold.

20 Solution protocol: rough image optimal feasible region value of the object function of the GAP Controlled by multiple agents No window, no altimeter, but a touchdown can be detected.

21 Experiments  Objective Clarify the effect of the noise strategy  Settings Problem instances (20 in total)  feasible instances  #agents ∈ {3,5,7}; #jobs = 5×#agents  profit and resource requirement of each job: an integer randomly selected from [1,10]  capacity of each agent = 20  Assignment topology: chain/ring/complete/random Protocol  Implemented in Java using TCP/IP socket comm.  step length l t =1.0  δ ∈ {0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0}  20 runs of the protocol with each value of δ for each instance; cutoff a run at (100×#jobs) rounds

22 Experiments  Measure the followings for each instance Opt.Ratio: the ratio of the runs where optimal solutions were found Fes.Ratio: the ratio of the runs where feasible solutions were found Avg/Bst.Quality: the average/best value of the solution qualities Avg.Cost: the average value of the numbers of rounds at which feasible solutions were found optimal feasible value of object function o f

23 Experiments  Observations The protocol with δ= 0.0 failed to find an optimal solution for almost all of the instances. In the protocol with δ ≠ 0.0, Opt.Ratio, Fes.Ratio, and Avg.Cost were obviously improved while Avg/Bst.Quality was kept at a “ reasonable ” level (average > 86%, best > 92%). In 3 out of 6 complete-topology instances, an optimal solution was never found at any value of δ. For many instances, increasing the value of δ may generally have an effect to rush the agents into reaching a compromise.

24 Conclusion  I have presented Generalized mutual assignment problem Distributed lagrangean relaxation protocol Noise strategy that makes the agents quickly agree on a feasible solution with reasonably good quality  Future work More sophisticated techniques to update μ The method that would realize distributed calculation of an upper bound of the optimal value.


Download ppt "Distributed Lagrangean Relaxation Protocol for the Generalized Mutual Assignment Problem Katsutoshi Hirayama (平山 勝敏) Faculty of Maritime Sciences (海事科学部)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google