This paper studies bilateral multi-issue negotiation between self-interested autonomous agents. Now, there are a number of different procedures that can be used for this process; the three main ones being the package deal procedure in which all the issues are bundled and discussed together, the simultaneous procedure in which the issues are discussed simultaneously but independently of each other, and the sequential procedure in which the issues are discussed one after another. Since each of them yields a different outcome, a key problem is to decide which one to use in which circumstances. Specifically, we consider this question for a model in which the agents have time constraints (in the form of both deadlines and discount factors) and information uncertainty (in that the agents do not know the opponents utility function). For this model, we consider issues that are both independent and those that are interdependent and determine equilibria for each case for each procedure. In so doing, we show that the package deal is in fact the optimal procedure for each party. We then go on to show that, although the package deal may be computationally more complex than the other two procedures, it generates Pareto optimal outcomes (unlike the other two), it has similar earliest and latest possible times of agreement to the simultaneous procedure (which is better than the sequential procedure), and that it (like the other two procedures) generates a unique outcome only under certain conditions (which we define).

Solution-Guided Multi-Point Constructive Search (SGMPCS) is a novel constructive search technique that performs a series of resource-limited tree searches where each search begins either from an empty solution (as in randomized restart) or from a solution that has been encountered during the search. A small number of these "elite solutions is maintained during the search. We introduce the technique and perform three sets of experiments on the job shop scheduling problem. First, a systematic, fully crossed study of SGMPCS is carried out to evaluate the performance impact of various parameter settings. Second, we inquire into the diversity of the elite solution set, showing, contrary to expectations, that a less diverse set leads to stronger performance. Finally, we compare the best parameter setting of SGMPCS from the first two experiments to chronological backtracking, limited discrepancy search, randomized restart, and a sophisticated tabu search algorithm on a set of well-known benchmark problems. Results demonstrate that SGMPCS is significantly better than the other constructive techniques tested, though lags behind the tabu search.

Matchmaking arises when supply and demand meet in an electronic marketplace, or when agents search for a web service to perform some task, or even when recruiting agencies match curricula and job profiles. In such open environments, the objective of a matchmaking process is to discover best available offers to a given request. We address the problem of matchmaking from a knowledge representation perspective, with a formalization based on Description Logics. We devise Concept Abduction and Concept Contraction as non-monotonic inferences in Description Logics suitable for modeling matchmaking in a logical framework, and prove some related complexity results. We also present reasonable algorithms for semantic matchmaking based on the devised inferences, and prove that they obey to some commonsense properties. Finally, we report on the implementation of the proposed matchmaking framework, which has been used both as a mediator in e-marketplaces and for semantic web services discovery.

Numerous formalisms and dedicated algorithms have been designed in the last decades to model and solve decision making problems. Some formalisms, such as constraint networks, can express "simple" decision problems, while others are designed to take into account uncertainties, unfeasible decisions, and utilities. Even in a single formalism, several variants are often proposed to model different types of uncertainty (probability, possibility...) or utility (additive or not). In this article, we introduce an algebraic graphical model that encompasses a large number of such formalisms: (1) we first adapt previous structures from Friedman, Chu and Halpern for representing uncertainty, utility, and expected utility in order to deal with generic forms of sequential decision making; (2) on these structures, we then introduce composite graphical models that express information via variables linked by "local" functions, thanks to conditional independence; (3) on these graphical models, we finally define a simple class of queries which can represent various scenarios in terms of observabilities and controllabilities. A natural decision-tree semantics for such queries is completed by an equivalent operational semantics, which induces generic algorithms. The proposed framework, called the Plausibility-Feasibility-Utility (PFU) framework, not only provides a better understanding of the links between existing formalisms, but it also covers yet unpublished frameworks (such as possibilistic influence diagrams) and unifies formalisms such as quantified boolean formulas and influence diagrams. Our backtrack and variable elimination generic algorithms are a first step towards unified algorithms.

The QXOR-SAT problem is the quantified version of the satisfiability problem XOR-SAT in which the connective exclusive-or is used instead of the usual or. We study the phase transition associated with random QXOR-SAT instances. We give a description of this phase transition in the case of one alternation of quantifiers, thus performing an advanced practical and theoretical study on the phase transition of a quantified problem.

In this paper we apply computer-aided theorem discovery technique to discover theorems about strongly equivalent logic programs under the answer set semantics. Our discovered theorems capture new classes of strongly equivalent logic programs that can lead to new program simplification rules that preserve strong equivalence. Specifically, with the help of computers, we discovered exact conditions that capture the strong equivalence between a rule and the empty set, between two rules, between two rules and one of the two rules, between two rules and another rule, and between three rules and two of the three rules.

The best performing algorithms for a particular oversubscribed scheduling application, Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) scheduling, appear to have little in common. Yet, through careful experimentation and modeling of performance in real problem instances, we can relate characteristics of the best algorithms to characteristics of the application. In particular, we find that plateaus dominate the search spaces (thus favoring algorithms that make larger changes to solutions) and that some randomization in exploration is critical to good performance (due to the lack of gradient information on the plateaus). Based on our explanations of algorithm performance, we develop a new algorithm that combines characteristics of the best performers; the new algorithms performance is better than the previous best. We show how hypothesis driven experimentation and search modeling can both explain algorithm performance and motivate the design of a new algorithm.

We study auctions with severe bounds on the communication allowed: each bidder may only transmit t bits of information to the auctioneer. We consider both welfare- and profit-maximizing auctions under this communication restriction. For both measures, we determine the optimal auction and show that the loss incurred relative to unconstrained auctions is mild. We prove non-surprising properties of these kinds of auctions, e.g., that in optimal mechanisms bidders simply report the interval in which their valuation lies in, as well as some surprising properties, e.g., that asymmetric auctions are better than symmetric ones and that multi-round auctions reduce the communication complexity only by a linear factor.

Most classical scheduling formulations assume a fixed and known duration for each activity. In this paper, we weaken this assumption, requiring instead that each duration can be represented by an independent random variable with a known mean and variance. The best solutions are ones which have a high probability of achieving a good makespan. We first create a theoretical framework, formally showing how Monte Carlo simulation can be combined with deterministic scheduling algorithms to solve this problem. We propose an associated deterministic scheduling problem whose solution is proved, under certain conditions, to be a lower bound for the probabilistic problem. We then propose and investigate a number of techniques for solving such problems based on combinations of Monte Carlo simulation, solutions to the associated deterministic problem, and either constraint programming or tabu search. Our empirical results demonstrate that a combination of the use of the associated deterministic problem and Monte Carlo simulation results in algorithms that scale best both in terms of problem size and uncertainty. Further experiments point to the correlation between the quality of the deterministic solution and the quality of the probabilistic solution as a major factor responsible for this success.

PDDL was originally conceived and constructed as a lingua franca for the International Planning Competition. PDDL2.1 embodies a set of extensions intended to support the expression of something closer to real planning problems. This objective has only been partially achieved, due in large part to a deliberate focus on not moving too far from classical planning models and solution methods.