--- title: "A COP Model for Graph-Constrained Coalition Formation (Extended Abstract)" authors: - "Filippo Bistaffa" - "Alessandro Farinelli" doi: "10.24963/ijcai.2018/783" url: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/783" pdf: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/0783.pdf" venue: "Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence" year: 2018 pages: "5553-5557" track: "Journal track" keywords: - "Constraints and SAT: Constraint Optimisation" - "Agent-based and Multi-agent Systems: Coordination and Cooperation" --- # A COP Model for Graph-Constrained Coalition Formation (Extended Abstract) Filippo Bistaffa, Alessandro Farinelli *Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 5553-5557. DOI: [10.24963/ijcai.2018/783](https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/783) ## Abstract We focus on Graph-Constrained Coalition Formation (GCCF), a widely studied subproblem of coalition formation where the set of valid coalitions is constrained by a graph. We propose COP-GCCF, a novel approach that models GCCF as a COP. We then solve such COP with a highly-parallel GPU implementation of Bucket Elimination, which is able to exploit the high constraint tightness of COP-GCCF. Results on realistic graphs, i.e., a crawl of the Twitter social graph, show that our approach outperforms state of the art algorithms (i.e., DyCE and IDP G ) by at least one order of magnitude, both in terms of runtime and memory. ## Full text ## 1 Introduction Coalition Formation (CF) [Sandholm et al., 1999] is a fundamental collaboration approach in multi-agent systems, where multiple agents join forces (or form groups) to achieve either their individual or collective goals. In this paper we focus on the associated optimisation problem, i.e., Coalition Structure Generation (CSG), which aims at partitioning the set of agents (into disjoint coalitions) with the objective of maximising the sum of the values of the chosen coalitions, provided by the so-called characteristic function. Our work is positioned in a strand of literature, namely Graph-Constrained Coalition Formation (GCCF), pioneered by Myerson [1977] and Demange [2004], and later developed by Voice et al. [2012a], Voice et al. [2012b], and Bistaffa et al. [2017a]. GCCF is characterised by a specific type of constraints that encode synergies or relationships among the agents and that can be expressed by a graph, where nodes represent agents and edges encode the relationships between the agents. In GCCF, edges enable connected agents to form a coalition and a coalition is feasible only if its members are the vertices of a connected subgraph. Several real-world scenarios feature this type of constraints, such as social or trust constraints (e.g., energy consumers who prefer to group with their acquaintances in forming energy cooperatives [Bistaffa et al., 2017a], or commuters sharing rides with their friends [Bistaffa et al., 2017b]), and physical constraints (e.g., emergency responders may join specific teams in disaster scenarios where only certain routes are available). Unfortunately, State of the Art (SoA) algorithms that solve GCCF either require an exponential amount of memory [Voice et al., 2012b] or make specific assumptions on the characteristic function [Voice et al., 2012a; Bistaffa et al., 2017a]. Now, GCCF can be seen as an optimisation problem (aiming at maximising the sum of the coalitional values) subject to feasibility constraints (i.e., coalitions must be feasible and disjoint). Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge none of the constraint optimisation techniques in the literature [Dechter, 2003] has ever been applied to GCCF. Against this background, we propose COP-GCCF, 1 the first approach that models GCCF as a Constrained Optimisation Problem (COP). COP-GCCF does not make any assumption on the structure of the characteristic function. As a consequence, in such general case, GCCF is NP-Hard, hence finding the optimal solution is computationally demanding. Nonetheless, the structure of the characteristic function could be not known and/or hard to formalise, hence exploiting it could be often very difficult or impossible. Moreover, even if the structure of the characteristic function is known, it could be difficult to exploit from the algorithmic point of view. For instance, in the work by Bistaffa et al. [2017b] the structure is known a priori, but the authors need to devise a complex, adhoc technique (i.e., not easily applicable to scenarios different from ridesharing) to compute an upper-bound on the characteristic function, so as to exploit such a structure within their branch-and-bound CSG algorithm. Therefore, it is important to have a solution technique that does not require any property on the characteristic function. To achieve this objective, we exploit the structure of the graph within COP-GCCF, so as to achieve a model of manageable complexity. Specifically, we propose a COP formalisation that builds a hierarchy of agents resulting in a linear number of constraints (wrt the number of agents). We represent constraints as incomplete tables (i.e., unfeasible assignments are not represented in memory), so as to exploit the high constraint tightness inherent in GCCF. This allows us to reduce the number of rows in each constraint function from exponential to linear wrt the number of variables in the scope. We then solve the COP-GCCF model using a GPU implementation of Bucket Elimination (BE) provided by Bistaffa et al. [2016], since, to the best of our knowledge, it is the only one able to exploit incomplete tables so as to obtain an approach with manageable memory requirements (see Section 3.3). In fact, SoA COP solution algorithms [Marinescu and Dechter, 2007; Fioretto et al., 2015] without this capability could only solve problems with up to 5 agents in our tests. Our results show that BE can be a practical solution approach if the problem is appropriately modelled as a COP, as also confirmed by Larrosa et al. [2005]. Finally, we exploit highly-parallel architectures (i.e., GPUs). This choice is motivated by the successful use of cloud-based [Malapert et al., 2016] and GPU-based [Greengard, 2016] parallel approaches to speed-up the solution of problems that exhibit a high level of parallelism, especially in the field of AI. 1 This paper is an extended abstract of an article in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research [Bistaffa and Farinelli, 2018], which contains parts of this paper. The journal version contains a full theoretical discussion of our approach, a comprehensive literature review, and an extended experimental evaluation. In more detail, we advance the SoA in the following ways: - We propose COP-GCCF, the first COP model to solve GCCF, which requires a linear number of constraints. We establish a new link between GCCF and COPs, which opens a new line of research focusing on the use of COP methods for GCCF. - We test COP-GCCF both on realistic and synthetic network topologies. Results show that COP-GCCF does not provide any benefit with dense graphs, but it outperforms SoA algorithms (i.e., DyCE and IDPG) on sparse topologies, both in terms of runtime and memory. COPGCCF is at least one order of magnitude (OoM) faster than counterpart approaches using Twitter [Kwak et al., 2010] as a realistic graph topology. Our tests confirm that COP-GCCF improves upon SoA GCCF solution algorithms, by correctly exploiting the structure of the graph, even without exploiting the structure of the characteristic function. ## 2 Background ## 2.1 COPs Constraint Optimisation Problems (COPs) [Dechter, 2003] are a general class of problems, which can be used to model several optimisation scenarios [Dechter, 1999]. A COP takes as input a cost network, i.e., a graph among the variables and the cost functions of the problem, and requires to compute the assignment of the variables that minimise such functions. Cost functions can be encoded as tables, in which each row represents a variable assignment and its resulting value. Definition 1 (complete (resp. incomplete) tables). A cost function Fi is complete if unfeasible assignments are explicitly represented with -∞ (+∞ in case of a minimisation problem) values. In contrast, if unfeasible assignments are not represented at all, Fi is said to be incomplete. COPs can be solved both with Dynamic Programming (DP) algorithms and with search-based approaches. On the one hand, Bucket Elimination (BE) [Dechter, 1999; Dechter, 2003] is the most important DP algorithm that solves COPs, which has been recently implemented on GPUs [Bistaffa et al., 2016]. On the other hand, Marinescu and Dechter [2007] proposed a best-first search approach that adopts BE-based heuristics to guide the traversal of a particular AND/OR search tree. Both the above approaches have been considered as solvers for our model (see Section 3.3). ## 2.2 The GCCF Problem The Coalition Structure Generation (CSG) problem [Shehory and Kraus, 1998; Sandholm et al., 1999] takes as input a finite set of n agents A = {a1, . . . , an} and a characteristic function v : 2A → R, that maps each coalition S ∈ 2A to its value, describing how much collective payoff a set of players can gain by forming a coalition. A coalition structure CS is a partition of the set of agents into disjoint coalitions. The set of all coalition structures is Π(A). The value of a coalition structure CS is assessed as the sum of the values of its composing coalitions, i.e., V (CS) = ∑S∈CS v(S). The CSG problem aims at identifying CS∗ , the most valuable coalition structure, i.e., CS∗ = argmaxCS∈Π(A) V (CS). Given a graph G = (A, E), where E ⊆ A × A is a set of edges between agents, representing their relationships (i.e., friendship), Myerson [1977] considers a coalition S to be feasible if all of its members are connected in the subgraph of G induced by S. That is, if for each pair of players from a, b ∈ S there is a path in G that connects them without going out of S. Given G, the set of feasible coalitions is FC(G) = {S ⊆ A | The subgraph induced by S on G is connected} . A Graph-Constrained Coalition Formation (GCCF) problem [Voice et al., 2012b] is a CSG problem together with a graph G, where a coalition S is considered feasible if S ∈ FC(G). In GCCF a coalition structure CS is considered feasible if each of its coalitions is feasible, i.e., CS(G) = {CS ∈ Π(A) | CS ⊆ FC(G)}. Hence, the goal GCCF is to identify CS∗ , which is the most valuable feasible coalition structure, i.e., CS∗ = argmaxCS∈CS(G) V (CS). GCCF is NP-Hard [Voice et al., 2012a]. ## 3 COP-GCCF In this section we discuss COP-GCCF, our COP formalisation of the GCCF problem. Our COP comprises |FC(G)| binary variables, i.e., one per feasible coalition. In our model, xS = 1 does not necessarily mean that S is part of the final coalition structure, since a variable can be activated because it is required by another variable (see Section 3.1). Intuitively, only active variables that correspond to maximal coalitions are part of the final coalition structure. In the example in Figure 2, if x13 = 1 in the solution of the COP, then x3 = 1 since x3 is required by x13, but only {a1, a3} is part of the final coalition structure. 2 Formally, X = {xS | S ∈ FC(G)}. The computation of X is equivalent to the enumeration of all the subgraphs of G and can be solved using one of the existing algorithms in the literature [Moerkotte and Neumann, 2006; Voice et al., 2012b]. We use SlyCE by Voice et al. [2012b], which also provide a parallelised version, i.e., D-SlyCE. A set of coalitions S is a partition of A if each agent is part of exactly one coalition, i.e., Property 1. There are no overlapping coalitions in S. 2 In our examples, each xS will be named using indexes of agents in S, e.g., xa1,a3 will be named x13. Figure 1: Example graph G and the corresponding PT (G). ![Image](https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/fulltext/783/image_000000_0c67be6d20bb54e921faac6dff3452ad63c777116a568b3dd612e3379124bd21.png) Property 2. Each agent in A is part of a coalition in S. The above properties enforce constraints that determine the solution space of valid variable assignments for our COP. Within COP-GCCF, we exploit the structure of the graph G in order to express such constraints. As a first step, we construct a pseudotree PT(G) [Petcu, 2007] from G, establishing a partial order among the agents in A. P T (G) is a graph in which edges are directed from children nodes to parent ones (Figure 1). Back-edges, i.e., edges present in G but not explicitly present in its tree representation, are marked with a dashed line. It is crucial to note that back-edges cannot be removed from the graph, as they must be considered in order to have a complete and correct GCCF algorithm. Specifically, the information expressed by backedges is inherently maintained by the variables in the model. As an example, the information of (a1, a3) is maintained by x13 and x134, which would correspond to unfeasible coalitions without such edge. Then, we partition the set of variables X in n sets Xi, each corresponding to ai ∈ A, such that Xi = {xS | S contains only ai or its descendants in PT(G)}. Each Xi represents the set of local variables to the agent ai. In the above example, X1 = {x1, x12, x13, x123, x14, x124, x134, x1234}, X2 = {x2, x23}, X3 = {x3}, and X4 = {x4}. As stated above, Properties 1 and 2 must be ensured in order to correctly represent the GCCF problem. Property 1 requires that the activation of a particular variable/coalition excludes the activation of incompatible variables, i.e., variables whose concurrent activation would generate overlapping coalitions. Now, since in COP-GCCF we construct n constraint functions Fi, each responsible for the variables in Xi (see Section 3.2), Property 2 can be easily achieved for such variables by allowing only the assignments in which exactly one local variable is activated. On the other hand, Property 1 cannot be directly enforced for variables that are local to different agents, i.e., that belong to different Xi, and hence, to different constraint functions. Notice that introducing additional binary constraints between overlapping variables would result in (|X| 2 ) constraints. In contrast, we achieve this exploiting the concept of required variables. ## 3.1 Required Variables The main idea behind required variables is that the formation of a variable/coalition xS ∈ Xi can be achieved exploiting the hierarchy induced by PT(G). Intuitively, the agent ai can negotiate the formation process only with its children nodes, allowing a more succinct representation of the problem and saving computational resources. As an example, x1234 (local to a1) requires the participation of a2, a3, and a4, but a1 can force the participation of a3 through a2. In other words, x1234 requires x4 and x23, which indirectly requires x3 through a2. Formally, we represent such dependencies with the requires relation, denoted as req(PT(G)) ⊆ X2 , i.e., a set of couples of variables. Figure 2 illustrates such relation corresponding to the above example. Figure 2: The requires relation (indirect requirements drawn as dashdotted lines). ![Image](https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/fulltext/783/image_000001_05c4258982196b87109b334b90d4c6d360cf67f4b73a91265381551afbf95a9d.png) The crucial feature of required variables is that any two variables that require the same variable cannot be enabled simultaneously. Since we cannot activate two variables both local to the same agent, two variables that require variables local to the same agent cannot be both active. By enforcing this, we ensure that no overlapping variables local to different agents are activated at the same time. In the next section, we show how to construct n constraint functions that implement the above discussed concepts. ## 3.2 Constructing Constraint Functions As mentioned in Section 3, COP-GCCF involves n constraint functions Fi, one for each agent ai. Each Fi is constructed according to the following definition. Definition 2 (Fi). Each Fi is responsible for the variables local to ai, hence we initialise the scope Qi of each Fi to include Xi. To represent the requires relation, we include all the non-local variables that require a variable in Xi, i.e., Qi = Xi ∪ {xS | ∃xS′ ∈ Xi : (xS, xS′) ∈ req(PT(G))}. The scope Qi of each Fi comprises Xi, i.e., the variables local to ai, plus all the non-local variables that require a variable in Xi. Each Fi contains |Qi| feasible assignments, i.e., one for each variable in the scope. The variable assignment in each row is constructed by activating the corresponding variable, namely xS. If xS is non-local, i.e., xS ̸∈ Xi, we also activate the variable required by xS. Then, for each assignment in which a local variable xS ∈ Xi is activated, we define the corresponding value equal to v(S), while such value is 0 when a non-local variable is considered. This avoids the duplication of v(S) when xS is propagated as a non-local variable across the constraint functions. Notice that, in our model, we do not explicitly represent unfeasible assignments, i.e., each Fi is an incomplete table. This is of utmost importance, since it allows us to reduce the space required by each Fi to a tractable size. Specifically, within COP-GCCF each Fi has |Qi| rows, as opposed to 2|Qi| rows, if we used complete tables with unfeasible assignments represented as -∞. On the other hand, not all COP solution algorithms support incomplete tables. Henceforth, is it also necessary to use a solver that is able to exploit this feature, as discussed in detail in Section 3.3. Figure 3: Constraint function F4. | | x4 | x1234 | x124 | x134 | x14 | Value | |-----------|------|---------|--------|--------|-------|---------| | Local | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | v({a4}) | | | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Non-local | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | Non-local | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Figure 3 shows an example of constraint function (with non-local variables highlighted in grey) corresponding to the example in Figure 1. Notice that, at the moment, our model propagates several variables down the pseudotree. As an example, X4 contains only one variable, but Q4 = X4 ∪ {x1234, x124, x134, x14}. In the journal version of this paper [Bistaffa and Farinelli, 2018] we also discuss an optimised version of our model that allows one to significantly reduce the number of propagated variables. COP-GCCF is correct (as we prove in the journal version [Bistaffa and Farinelli, 2018]), i.e., the optimal solution of COP-GCCF is the optimal solution of the corresponding GCCF problem. ## 3.3 Solving the COP As previously discussed, COPs can be solved both with BE and with search-based approaches. However, a fundamental feature of COP-GCCF is the high constraint tightness (i.e., several variable assignments in each Fi table are unfeasible, see Section 3.2). Hence, using a solver that is able to internally represent constraints as incomplete tables, which allow to significantly reduce memory requirements, is a crucial aspect in the choice of the COP solution algorithm. The SoA search-based solution approach [Marinescu and Dechter, 2007] adopts BE-based heuristics to guide the traversal of a particular AND/OR search tree. Such an algorithm can read problem instances with incomplete tables, which are then internally converted to complete ones, i.e., with each unfeasible assignment associated to -∞. This results in a huge consumption of memory (see Section 3.2), since each Fi has to contain 2|Qi| rows, 2|Qi| -|Qi| of which are associated to -∞. We tested Marinescu and Dechter's approach on problem instances expressed using incomplete tables (i.e., in WCSP format). Our results show that this approach could not solve COPs representing GCCF problems with > 5 agents, due to high memory requirements. We obtained similar results with ToulBar2 [Allouche et al., 2010]. 3 For this reason, we do not report these results in our experimental evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, the only COP solution approach that internally represents constraints as incomplete tables is CUBE, i.e., the GPU version of BE by Bistaffa et al. [2016]. Fioretto et al. [2015] also proposed a GPU version of BE, which, on the other hand, does not internally employ incomplete tables, and hence, would incur in the same drawbacks discussed above. As a consequence, we adopt Bistaffa et al.'s approach to solve COP-GCCF. 3 Topology-aware solvers are not effective for our model, since the constraint graph has usually a very high treewidth (i.e., 20-30). ## 4 Experimental Evaluation The main goals of our empirical analysis are i) to evaluate the performance of COP-GCCF in terms of runtime and memory requirements and ii) to compare it with DyCE and with IDPG. Following Voice et al. [2012b] and Bistaffa et al. [2017b], we generate random GCCF instances considering three different network topologies for the graph G, i.e., scale-free networks obtained with the Barab´asi-Albert model with m = 1 and 2, and subgraphs of a large crawl of the Twitter social graph [Kwak et al., 2010]. G is obtained by means of a BFS starting from a random node of the whole graph, adding each node and the corresponding arcs to G, until the desired number of nodes is reached [Russell, 2013]. Each feasible coalition is associated to an uniformly distributed random value within [-10, 10], while, for IDPG, unfeasible coalitions have a value of -∞. We vary n within [20, 30], generating 20 random instances for each of the above network topologies and solving each of them with the three considered algorithms. All our experiments are run on a machine with a 3.40GHz CPU, 16GB of memory and a GeForce GTX 680 GPU. 4 For DyCE and IDPG, we used the authors' implementations. In terms of runtime, our results show that COP-GCCF outperforms DyCE in all the considered network topologies, and it is one OoM faster than IDPG on a realistic dataset, i.e., Twitter. On the other hand, the trend in our tests also shows that IDPG performs better than COP-GCCF on dense or almost completely connected graphs. This is expected, as IDPG is specifically devised for completely connected graphs, and, hence, is a preferable solution technique in such scenarios. In terms of memory consumption, our results follow the behaviour discussed above, i.e., the memory requirements of COP-GCCF are lower wrt DyCE and IDPG for scale-free networks with m = 1 and Twitter subgraphs. The memory consumption of our approach is 2 OoM lower in the former case, and 1 OoM lower in the latter one. For scale-free networks with m = 2, COP-GCCF requires twice as much the memory wrt DyCE and IDPG, due to the higher density of G that results in a larger number of variables. ## 5 Conclusions We proposed COP-GCCF, a novel approach that models the GCCF problem as a COP, and we solve such COP with a GPU algorithm based on BE. Our results show that our approach outperforms SoA algorithms on a realistic dataset, both in terms of runtime and memory. Moreover, we establish a clear link between GCCF and COPs, which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been proposed before in the literature. Future work will aim at applying our model to realistic scenarios, such as Collective Energy Purchasing [Bistaffa et al., 2017a] and Social Ridesharing [Bistaffa et al., 2017b]. ## Acknowledgments Bistaffa was supported by the H2020-MSCA-IF-2016 HPA4CF project. 4 Our implementation is available at https://github.com/ filippobistaffa/COP-GCCF. ## References 1. [Allouche et al., 2010] David Allouche, Simon de Givry, and Thomas Schiex. Toulbar2, an open source exact cost func- tion network solver. Technical report, INRIA, 2010. 2. [Bistaffa and Farinelli, 2018] Filippo Bistaffa and Alessan- dro Farinelli. A COP Model for Graph-Constrained Coali- tion Formation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62:133-153, 2018. 3. [Bistaffa et al., 2016] Filippo Bistaffa, Nicola Bombieri, and Alessandro Farinelli. An efficient approach for accelerat- ing bucket elimination on GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 47(11):3967-3979, 2016. 4. [Bistaffa et al., 2017a] Filippo Bistaffa, Alessandro Farinelli, Jesús Cerquides, Juan Rodríguez-Aguilar, and Sarvapali D. Ramchurn. Algorithms for graph- constrained coalition formation in the real world. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 8(4), 2017. 5. [Bistaffa et al., 2017b] Filippo Bistaffa, Alessandro Farinelli, Georgios Chalkiadakis, and Sarvapali D. Ramchurn. A cooperative game-theoretic approach to the social ridesharing problem. Artificial Intelligence, 246:86-117, 2017. 6. [Dechter, 1999] Rina Dechter. Bucket elimination: A uni- fying framework for reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 113(1-2):41-85, 1999. 7. [Dechter, 2003] Rina Dechter. Constraint processing. Mor- gan Kaufmann, 2003. 8. [Demange, 2004] Gabrielle Demange. On group stability in hierarchies and networks. Political Economy, 112(4):754- 778, 2004. 9. [Fioretto et al., 2015] Ferdinando Fioretto, Tiep Le, Enrico Pontelli, William Yeoh, and TranCao Son. Exploit- ing GPUs in solving (distributed) constraint optimiza- tion problems with dynamic programming. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 121-139. 2015. 10. [Greengard, 2016] Samuel Greengard. GPUs reshape com- puting. Communications of the ACM, 59(9), 2016. 11. [Kwak et al., 2010] Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Ho- sung Park, and Sue Moon. What is Twitter, a social net- work or a news media? In International World Wide Web Conference, pages 591-600, 2010. 12. [Larrosa et al., 2005] Javier Larrosa, Enric Morancho, and David Niso. On the practical use of variable elimination in constraint optimization problems: "still-life" as a case study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 23:421- 440, 2005. 13. [Malapert et al., 2016] Arnaud Malapert, Jean-Charles Régin, and Mohamed Rezgui. Embarrassingly parallel search in constraint programming. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 57:421-464, 2016. 14. [Marinescu and Dechter, 2007] Radu Marinescu and Rina Dechter. Best-first AND/OR search for graphical mod- els. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1171-1176, 2007. 15. [Moerkotte and Neumann, 2006] Guido Moerkotte and Thomas Neumann. Analysis of two existing and one new dynamic programming algorithm for the generation of optimal bushy join trees without cross products. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 930-941, 2006. 16. [Myerson, 1977] Roger B. Myerson. Graphs and cooper- ation in games. Mathematics of Operations Research, 2(3):225-229, 1977. 17. [Petcu, 2007] Adrian Petcu. A Class of Algorithms for Dis- tributed Constraint Optimization. Phd. thesis no. 3942, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), 2007. 18. [Russell, 2013] Matthew A. Russell. Mining the Social Web. O'Reilly Media, 2013. 19. [Sandholm et al., 1999] Tuomas Sandholm, Kate Larson, Martin Andersson, Onn Shehory, and Fernando Tohmé. Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees. Artificial Intelligence, 111(1):209-238, 1999. 20. [Shehory and Kraus, 1998] Onn Shehory and Sarit Kraus. Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1-2):165-200, 1998. 21. [Voice et al., 2012a] Thomas Voice, Maria Polukarov, and Nicholas Jennings. Coalition structure generation over graphs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 45:165-196, 2012. 22. [Voice et al., 2012b] Thomas Voice, Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, and Nicholas R. Jennings. On coalition formation with sparse synergies. In International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 223- 230, 2012.