Coalitional games serve the purpose of modeling payoff distribution problems in scenarios where agents can collaborate by forming coalitions in order to obtain higher worths than by acting in isolation. In the classical Transferable Utility (TU) setting, coalition worths can be freely distributed amongst agents. However, in several application scenarios, this is not the case and the Non-Transferable Utility setting (NTU) must be considered, where additional application-oriented constraints are imposed on the possible worth distributions. In this paper, an approach to define NTU games is proposed which is based on describing allowed distributions via a set of mixed-integer linear constraints applied to an underlying TU game. It is shown that such games allow non-transferable conditions on worth distributions to be specified in a natural and succinct way. The properties and the relationships among the most prominent solution concepts for NTU games that hold when they are applied on (mixed-integer) constrained games are investigated. Finally, a thorough analysis is carried out to assess the impact of issuing constraints on the computational complexity of some of these solution concepts.

The Aviation Safety Reporting System collects voluntarily submitted reports on aviation safety incidents to facilitate research work aiming to reduce such incidents. To effectively reduce these incidents, it is vital to accurately identify why these incidents occurred. More precisely, given a set of possible causes, or shaping factors, this task of cause identification involves identifying all and only those shaping factors that are responsible for the incidents described in a report. We investigate two approaches to cause identification. Both approaches exploit information provided by a semantic lexicon, which is automatically constructed via Thelen and Riloff's Basilisk framework augmented with our linguistic and algorithmic modifications. The first approach labels a report using a simple heuristic, which looks for the words and phrases acquired during the semantic lexicon learning process in the report. The second approach recasts cause identification as a text classification problem, employing supervised and transductive text classification algorithms to learn models from incident reports labeled with shaping factors and using the models to label unseen reports. Our experiments show that both the heuristic-based approach and the learning-based approach (when given sufficient training data) outperform the baseline system significantly.

Many search algorithms have parameters that need to be tuned to get the best performance. Typically, the parameters are tuned offline, resulting in a generic setting that is supposed to be effective on all problem instances. For suboptimal single-agent search, problem-instance-specific parameter settings can result in substantially reduced search effort. We consider the use of dovetailing as a way to take advantage of this fact. Dovetailing is a procedure that performs search with multiple parameter settings simultaneously. Dovetailing is shown to improve the search speed of weighted IDA* by several orders of magnitude and to generally enhance the performance of weighted RBFS. This procedure is trivially parallelizable and is shown to be an effective form of parallelization for WA* and BULB. In particular, using WA* with parallel dovetailing yields good speedups in the sliding-tile puzzle domain, and increases the number of problems solved when used in an automated planning system.

In various domains, such as computer games, robotics, and transportation networks, shortest paths may need to be found quickly. Search time can be significantly reduced if it is known which parts of the graph include "swamps" - areas that cannot lie on the only available shortest path, and can thus safely be pruned during search. We introduce an algorithm for detecting hierarchies of swamps, and exploiting them. Experiments support our claims of improved efficiency, showing significant reduction in search time.

We introduce a new bidirectional search algorithm, Single-Frontier Bidirectional Search (SFBDS). Unlike traditional BDS which keeps two frontiers, SFBDS uses a single frontier. At a particular node we can decide to search from start to goal or from goal to start, choosing the direction with the highest potential for minimizing the total work done. We provide theoretical analysis that explains when SFBDS will work validated by experimental results.

We use genetic programming to evolve highly successful solvers for two puzzles: Rush Hour and FreeCell. Many NP-Complete puzzles have remained relatively neglected by researchers (see (Kendall, Parkes, and Spoerer 2008) for a review).

The second is causal analysis: isolate I have seen several reviewers claim that experimental evaluations what causes a performance improvement and leave everything must use problem instances that are large enough to else unchanged, hopefully leaving the uncontrolled biases take more than x time to solve, where x has varied from the same between the two conditions. Note that nothing a few seconds to many minutes. The fact that the stated in this disturbing anecdote relates to benchmark size. Both values for x have varied over two orders of magnitude is short-and long-running benchmarks were affected, and the perhaps one indication that the criterion has no firm basis, recommendation is to increase benchmark diversity, which but let's consider it in more depth. I believe that it represents requires more benchmarks, which must therefore be smaller a serious problem: I have seen a paper (not from (in order to fit into the same PhD program or yearly conference my group) proposing a novel and interesting algorithm that timescale). Large benchmarks therefore inhibit correction soundly beat the state-of-the-art by orders of magnitude rejected of measurement bias.

We discuss the relationships between three approaches to greedy heuristic search: best-first, hill-climbing, and beam search. We consider the design decisions within each family and point out their oft-overlooked similarities. We consider the following best-first searches: weighted A*, greedy search, ASeps, window A* and multi-state commitment k-weighted A*. For hill climbing algorithms, we consider enforced hill climbing and LSS-LRTA*. We also consider a variety of beam searches, including BULB and beam-stack search. We show how to best configure beam search in order to maximize robustness. An empirical analysis on six standard benchmarks reveals that beam search and best-first search have remarkably similar performance, and outperform hill-climbing approaches in terms of both time to solution and solution quality. Of these, beam search is preferable for very large problems and best first search is better on problems where the goal cannot be reached from all states.

In this paper we explore a novel approach for anytime heuristic search, in which the node that is most probable to improve the incumbent solution is expanded first. This is especially suited for the "anytime aspect" of anytime algorithms - the possibility that the algorithm will be be halted anytime throughout the search. The potential of a node to improve the incumbent solution is estimated by a custom cost function, resulting in Potential Search, an anytime best-first search. Experimental results on the 15-puzzle and on the key player problem in communication networks (KPP-COM) show that this approach is competitive with state-of-the-art anytime heuristic search algorithms, and is more robust.

Branch-and-Bound search is a basic algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Here we introduce a new lower-bounding methodology that can be incorporated into any branch-and-bound solver, and demonstraint its use on the MaxSAT constraint optimization problem. The approach is to adapt a “minimum-height equivalent transformation” framework that was first developed in the context of computer vision. We present efficient algorithms to realize this framework within the MaxSAT domain, and demonstrate their feasibility by implementing them within the state-of-the-art maxsatz solver. We evaluate the solver on test sets from the 2009 MaxSAT competition; we observe a basic performance tradeoff whereby the (quadratic) time cost of computing the transformations may or may not be worthwhile in exchange for better bounds and more frequent pruning. For specific test sets, the trade-off does result in significant improvement in both prunings and overall run-time.