Skip to main content

Cost of Cooperation for Scheduling Meetings

  • Conference paper
Intelligent Distributed Computing III

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 237))

Abstract

Scheduling meetings among agents can be represented as a game - the Meetings Scheduling Game (MSG). In its simplest form, the two-person MSG is shown to have a price of anarchy (PoA) which is bounded by 0.5. The paper defines the Cost of Cooperation (CoC) for meetings scheduling games, with respect to different global objective functions. For an “egalitarian” objective, that maximizes the minimal gain among all participating agents, the CoC is non positive for all agents. This makes the MSG a cooperation game. The concepts are defined and examples are given within the context of the MSG. A game may be revised by adding a mediator (or with a slight change of its mechanism) so that it behaves as a cooperation game. Thus, rational participants can cooperate (by taking part in a distributed optimization protocol) and receive a payoff which will be at least as high as the worst gain expected by a game theoretic equilibrium point.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crawford, E., Veloso, M.: Mechanism design for multi-agent meeting scheduling. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 4(2), 209–220 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ephrati, E., Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J.S.: A non manipulable meeting scheduling system. In: Proc. Intern. Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Seatle, WA (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gershman, A., Grubshtein, A., Meisels, A., Rokach, L., Zivan, R.: Scheduling meetings by agents. In: Proc. 7th Intern. Conf. on Pract. & Theo. Automated Timetabling (PATAT 2008), Montreal (August 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Proc. of the 16th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pp. 404–413 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Maheswaran, R.T., Tambe, M., Bowring, E., Pearce, J.P., Varakantham, P.: Taking dcop to the real world: Efficient complete solutions for distributed multi-event scheduling. In: Proc. 3rd Intern. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), NY, New York, pp. 310–317 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Modi, J., Veloso, M.: Multiagent meeting scheduling with rescheduling. In: Proc. 5th workshop on distributed constraints reasoning DCR 2004, Toronto (September 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Monderer, D., Tennenholtz, M.: Strong mediated equilibrium. Artificial Intelligence 173(1), 180–195 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., Vazirani, V.V.: Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Papadimitriou, C.: Algorithms, games, and the internet. In: STOC 2001: Proc. of the 33rd annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, Hersonissos, Greece, pp. 749–753 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Petcu, A., Faltings, B., Parkes, D.: M-DPOP: Faithful distributed implementation of efficient social choice problems. Journal of AI Research (JAIR) 32, 705–755 (2008)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Roughgarden, T.: Selfish Routing and the Price of Anarchy. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Roughgarden, T., Tardos, É.: How bad is selfish routing? J. ACM 49(2), 236–259 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Rozenfeld, O., Tennenholtz, M.: Routing mediators. In: IJCAI, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1488–1493 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wallace, R.J., Freuder, E.: Constraint-based multi-agent meeting scheduling: effects of agent heterogeneity on performance and privacy loss. In: Proc. 3rd workshop on distributed constrait reasoning, DCR 2002, Bologna, pp. 176–182 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Grubshtein, A., Meisels, A. (2009). Cost of Cooperation for Scheduling Meetings. In: Papadopoulos, G.A., Badica, C. (eds) Intelligent Distributed Computing III. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 237. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03214-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03214-1_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03213-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03214-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics