Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keywords: Multi-agent theory, Group decision making, Expected utility, Alliance, Risk, Influence.
Abstract: The development of societies of human and machine agents should benefit from an understanding of human
group decision processes. Political Scientist and Professor, Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has made significant
claims for the predictive accuracy of his computational model of group decision making, receiving much
popular press including newspaper articles, books and a television documentary entitled “The New
Nostradamus”. Despite these and many journal and conference publications related to the topic, no clear
elicitation of the model exists in the open literature. We expose and present the model by careful navigation
of the literature and illustrate the soundness of our interpretation by replicating De Mesquita’s own results.
We also discuss concerns regarding model sensitivity and convergence.
method of data collection and interpretation from otherwise of third-party alliances. Based on actor i’s
human subjects; second, the computational model perception of expected utility, actor i considers
which he applies to that data. whether or not to challenge each other actor j, in an
The first part is significant, but has not been attempt to convince them to adopt i’s position. The
described by BDM in the open literature and so expected utility includes an assessment of the level
evades current interpretation or analysis. The second of third-party support for actor i’s challenge. If actor
part, the computational model we examine further. i’s expected utility of challenging actor j versus not
The model deals with a single ‘issue’ challenging is greater than zero, actor i will
decomposed into a metric scale, with ‘position’ challenge actor j, otherwise it will not. This model of
values (x) corresponding to states of the issue. BDM mind or agency is confrontational and wholly self-
illustrates, “The term xi represents each nation’s interested.
preferred date, measured in years, by which Not surprisingly, BDM has adapted the model
emission standards should be applied to medium- over the years. So it is necessary to clearly identify
sized automobiles as revealed at the outset of which version we are using when considering its
discussions on the issue.” (BDM, 1994, p.77). We form and results.
will continue with this example later in the results BDM (1980) provides the earliest form, which is
section. A number of ‘actors’ (i=1,2,…,n) exist, each repeated in BDM (1981). The notation is later
of which hold a single ‘position’ (xi) with regard to revised in BDM (1985), and includes a modification
the issue, represented by their assignment to a to include a risk exponent; however the basic
location. expected utility calculations remain the same from
Each ‘actor’ is also considered to possess some 1980 to 1985. We are readily familiar with the
‘capability’ (ci) with respect to the ‘issue’. expected value of a random variable Z, with various
‘Capability’ is sometimes interchangeably referred states Zw each with probability Pw of occurring as:
to as ‘power’ or ‘resources’ by BDM. Like
‘position’, ‘capability’ is given a value on a metric E z Pw Z w
scale. This value represents an actor’s level of w
influence with regard to the issue.
Lastly, each ‘actor’ is also considered to possess Expected utility follows the same structure in
some ‘salience’ (si) with respect to the ‘issue’. that the utilities of different contest outcomes are
‘Salience’ is sometimes interchangeably referred to estimated along with the associated probabilities.
as ‘importance’, ‘priority’, ‘attention’ by BDM. Like An apparent motivation for BDM’s expected
‘position’ and ‘capability’, ‘salience’ is given a utility model was predicting the outbreak of war as
value on a metric scale. This value represents an per BDM (1981). It is thus not surprising to find a
actor’s level of energy with regard to the issue. confrontational mentality to the basic form of the
Table 1 from BDM (1994, p. 78) illustrates. model. BDM considers an actor i to choose to
‘challenge’ a rival or opponent actor j. Thereby the
Table 1: Example input data for the computational model. expected utility for i to challenge j is:
The issue is ‘the date (years) of introduction of emission
standards for medium-sized automobiles’. E i U c PiU si 1 Pi U fi
Actor (i) Capability Position Salience
(ci) (xi) (si) Where Usi refers to the utility for actor i if it
Netherlands 0.08 4 80 succeeds and Ufi is the utility for actor i if it fails.
Belgium 0.08 7 40 BDM (1985, p. 158) extends this with a third
Luxembourg 0.03 4 20 term relating to the third-party contribution to i’s
Germany 0.16 4 80 expected utility (using BDM’s notation):
France
Italy
0.16
0.16
10
10
60
60 c Pi U sii 1 Pi U ifi
E i U ij
UK
Ireland
0.16
0.05
10
7
90
10
( Pik Pjk 1)(U kii U kji ) (1)
k i , j
Denmark 0.05 4 100
Greece 0.08 7 70 If actor i does not challenge j, i stays at the same
position and j may either remain where it is (status
BDM’s model decomposes the social fabric into quo) or j may move to a different position. If j
pairwise ‘contests’ between actors with support or moves, the utility of the outcome may prove either
19
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
E i U ij QU sq
Where Qq refers to the probability of status quo and i
Qb refers to a switch (value either 1 or 0) depending
1 Q TU bii 1 T U wii
nc (7)
on whether the outcome was better or worse. These
and other issues will be explained fully later.
The full form of the expected utility difference The notable change is the inclusion of salience sj and
combines (1) and (2): an extra term in the expected utility for challenge.
Otherwise, notation changes are minimal.
E i U ij E i U ij c E i U ij nc (3) This latter structure remains throughout BDM
(1994, 1997, and 2002). In BDM (2009b) a new
In BDM and Lalman (1986) a problem with the structure of model is announced, however we do not
following term in (1) is identified: consider this new model further. As a result of the
multi-lateral scaling issue with the model in its pre-
E i U ij m (P ik
Pjk 1)(U kii U kji ) (4)
1986 form, we focus on the model structure and
k i , j results for 1986 and later, using the form from
equations 5, 6 and 7.
The problem is described in BDM and Lalman
(1986):
Because of the manner in which third parties 3 UTILITIES
are treated in earlier studies (Bueno De
Mesquita, 1981, 1985), the operational BDM (1997, p.242-243) uses equations (5), (6) and
estimate of expected utility values for any (7) though with different notation. The probability of
decision maker could vary between (2N-2) status quo might be determined in a number of ways,
and –(2N-2), where N is the total number of however, a value of Q=1.0 is assumed in BDM
nations in the relevant international system. (1985, p.161), corresponding to a stoic opposition
Variations in the size of the international and a value of Q=0.5 is assumed in both BDM and
community, then, affected the possible range Lalman (1986, p.1122) and BDM (2009a, p.5),
of values in the expected utility models set corresponding to a maximally uncertain outcome of
out earlier. This is a serious shortcoming in whether the actor j will move or stay in position. No
that it makes comparison of a single nation’s explicit value for Q is specified in other papers.
utility scores in different years difficult. …
The new formulation fixes the range of 3.1 Base Utilities
values, irrespective of system size, in a
theoretically meaningful way. (p. 1119) To find the expected utility, we need to calculate the
basic utilities:
BDM’s proposed solution involves removing the
term (4) from (1) and incorporating a more complex
form of calculation of the probability Pi. In BDM U sii , U ifi , U bii , U wi
i i
, U sq (8)
(1985, p.161) the probability Pi refers to “Pi = i’s These utilities are a function of the policy position of
probability of succeeding in a bilateral contest with actors, xi and xj. BDM (1997, p.264) tells us that “…
j”. i’s utility for xk , u i xk , is a decreasing function of
From 1986 onwards, the definition of the the distance between the proposal and i’s preferred
probability is changed to account for multilateral resolution, so that
contributions to the contest between i and j. The new
i
form is denoted Pi . This will be defined later.
u i xk f xk x*I . ” (9)
The form of the expected utilities as stated in
BDM and Lalman (1986, p. 1118) are:
20
UNRAVELLING BUENO DE MESQUITA'S GROUP DECISION MODEL
The notation u i x j is not the same as that used in (8), U iii and U iji are defined by BDM (1985):
so some transformation is probably required. Thus
we interpret (9) as the general class of model only. It i
With U ii being equal to the value i attaches
is worth pointing out that a specific class is stated in
BDM (1997, p.245): to his own policy portfolio (Both U ii and
ri U jj are assumed to equal 1.0, with U ij and
u i x j 1 xi x*j (10)
U ji ranging between possible values of 1.0
However, (10) is inconsistent with the more detailed and -1.0), and with U iji being equal to the
earlier explanations, as the following will now
reveal. value i attaches to j’s policies as a function of
One clue to the utility calculations is given in their similarity to the policies of i. (p. 158)
BDM (1994): Thus,
Should i succeed, then i will derive the utility
associated with convincing j to switch from U iii U ijj U iij U jjj 1 (13)
its current policy stance to that supported by
i. This is denoted by u i x j | d , which equals
And to satisfy the stated range requirement we
u i ( xi x j ) . Should i fail, then it confronts
propose,
the prospect of having to abandon its
objectives in favour of those pursued by j, xi x j
denoted by u i x j | d u i ( x j xi ). (p. 84) U iji U iji 1 2 (14)
xmax xmin
Once again, BDM introduces additional notation Equation (14) is consistent with the statement and
i
u i ( xi x j ) and u ( x j xi ) which remains equation at (9). Note that -1≤ U iii ≤1. Where,
undefined. However, BDM (1985, p.158) gives xmax−xmin is the range of positions. Note the
utility for i’s success which is of the form of a maximum value of +1 occurs when policy positions
difference between positions i and j: of i and j coincide and is at its minimum of -1 when
the positions are maximally separated.
U sii 2 4
2 U iii U iji ri
(11)
Summarising, so far we have now accounted for
4 (8) parts a and b, which simplify to:
r
Also, the utility for i’s failure, which is of the form xi x j i
U sii 2 4 0 .5 0 .5 (15)
of a difference between positions j and i: xmax xmin
U ifi 2 4
2 U iji U iii ri
(12) xi x j i
r
4 U ifi 2 4 0 .5 0 .5 (16)
xmax xmin
Noting also in BDM (1985):
Note the ranges 2 4(0.5) ri U sii 2 and
The reason for the transformations by 2’s and
4’s is to preserve the original scale of 2 U ifi 2 4(0.5) ri are consistent with the
numbers while avoiding the generation of diagram in BDM (1985, p.159).
imaginary numbers. Because ri can be less i
BDM (1985) does not explicitly define U bi or
than 1.0, the absence of transformations
would mean that for negative values of, for i , however, we are given in BDM (1985, p.158):
U wi
instance Ufi, no real root would exist. This
problem is eliminated with the introduction
U
ri
U qii 2 4 2 U iii U iji i
U iji 4 (17)
of these transformations. (p. 158) tn ii t0
21
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
The subscripts t0 and tn are not defined, but in without A having to exert any effort. If B lies
BDM (1981, p.48) these correspond to before and between the median voter position and A,
after j’s policy change, respectively. The utility then whether A’s welfare improves or
subscript q is usually signifies status quo, but we worsens depends on how far B is expected to
believe this is an error in (17) and should instead move compared to A. The same is true if A
refer to j making a policy change (or move) which lies between B and the median. (p. 6)
gains or betters the situation for i. We are led to
believe this by BDM (1981, p.47-48): We interpret this to mean that for no challenge
(uncoerced), and B (or j) moves, that A (or i)
U i
ii U iji
t0
=i’s perception of what may be expects B (or j) will move to the median position.
The cases are illustrated in figures 1 to 4.
gained by succeeding in a bilateral conflict
with j… U iji U iii = i’s perception of what
t0
may be lost by failing in a bilateral conflict i j j i
with j…
Figure 1: Case 1: between i and j utility for i gets
So we adopt the subscript, b indicating ‘better’ better as a result of j moving.
consistent with (8). Furthermore, we note a problem
with scaling for (17), as it will become undefined
(negative number raised to a power less than 1.0).
Thus, corrections are also required to realign scaling.
The result is as follows: i j j i
Figure 2: Case 2: j between i and utility for i gets worse
U bii 2 4
tn
4 U iii U iji U iii U iji
t0
ri
(18)
as a result of j moving.
8
Similarly we expect that j’s movement may
potentially result in a worse condition for i:
j i i j
Figure 3: Case 3A: i between j and utility for i gets
i
U wi 2 4
tn
4 U iji U iii U iji U iii
t0
ri
(19)
better as a result of j moving.
8
Note this adjusted scaling ensures
r j i i j
2 4(0.5) ri U bi 2 and 2 U wi 2 4(0.5) i .
We are given a clue that some relation to the Figure 4: Case 3B: i between j and utility for i gets
worse as a result of j moving.
median voter position is important by
“ [u i x j | d and u i x j | d ] are approximated by For any of these cases then we expect,
comparing the value actor i attaches to the current
median voter prediction to the value i attaches to the
median anticipated if i accepts j’s preferred
U
i
ij t 0 1 2
xi x j
xmax xmin
(20)
outcome.” (BDM 1997, p. 248)
BDM (2009a) expresses this most clearly: U
i
ij tn 1 2
xi
xmax xmin
(21)
… they are anticipated to move towards the
median voter position if they make an Substituting (20) and (21) into (18) yields:
uncoerced move. This means that if B lies on
the opposite side of the median voter from A,
then A anticipates that if B moves U bii
2 4 0.5 0.25
xi xi x j ri
(22)
(probability=0.5), then B will move in such a xmax xmin
way as to come closer to the policy outcome
A supports and so A’s welfare will improve Substituting (20) and (21) into (19) yields:
22
UNRAVELLING BUENO DE MESQUITA'S GROUP DECISION MODEL
i
U wi
2 4 0.5 0.25
xi xi x j r i
(23)
tion to utility difference, capability and salience. The
votes ‘cast’ by agent i in comparing positions
xmax xmin x j and xk is given as BDM (1997, p.239):
We note further, that these utilities must be applied
in the appropriate cases. Thus if case 1 is true, then
vijk | x j , xk ci si u i x j u i xk (26)
the probability of i’s utility improving is 1.0 and by We emphasise, that these votes cast to k may
implication the probability of i’s utility worsening is
indeed be negative, if for example, agent i prefers j
0.0. We believe this defines the probability T in
to k. To map this notation to that used previously,
equation (7), though no known publication by the
author states this explicitly. So, cases 1 and 3A we interpret:
correspond to T=1 and cases 2 and 3B correspond to
T=0. This helps explain the description in BDM
u i x j U ij & u i xk U ik (27)
(1986, p. 1122).
Lastly, for the situation of no change in policy
Using (14) we get:
(status quo) i does not challenge and j does not
move, BDM (1985, p.158) defines: xi xk xi x j
vijk | x j , xk 2ci si (28)
(2 0)
ri xmax xmin
i
U sq 2 4 2 40.5ri (24)
4
According to BDM (1997):
We expect this corresponds to (8) part e.
To determine the calculations for actor j, BDM The prospect that a proposal will succeed is
(1985) notes: assumed to depend on how much support can
be mustered in its favour as compared with
Of course, the U sj , U fj and U qj terms (with the feasible alternatives. This is calculated as
the sum of “votes” across all actors in
appropriate superscripts) are defined comparison between xj and xk . (p. 240)
analogously. These terms vary as a function
of whose estimate of expected utility is being n
calculated (i.e., who is the superscripted v jk vijk (29)
actor) by varying the risk exponent, so that i 1
for expected utility equations with a j
superscript, j’s risk taking propensity is used In general, this pairwise determination is termed a
to estimate what j perceives to be the value of Condorcet Method of voting. A Condorcet winner is
success, failure, or no challenge for i in the candidate whom voters prefer to each other
accordance with the equations delineated candidate, when compared to them one at a time.
below. (p. 158) Black’s Median Voter theory now comes into
play, so “the decision adopted by the committee
Thus, the two main equations become: becomes determinant as soon as the position of the
one optimum – which we can refer to conveniently
E i U ij s j Pi iU sii 1 Pi i U ifi 1 s j U sii enough as the median optimum – is given.” (Black,
(25a)
QU (1 Q ) TU bii (1 T )U wii
i
sq 1948).
That is, in a majority election where a voter’s
E j U ji s j Pj jU sjj 1 Pj j U fjj 1 s j U sjj
attitude is represented as a point in one dimension, if
all voters vote for a candidate closest to their own
(25b)
QU sqj (1 Q ) TU bjj (1 T )U wjj preference and there are only two candidates, then if
the candidates want to maximise their votes they
should commit to the policy attitude preferred by the
3.2 The Median Voter Position
median voter.
In the previous section, it became clear that the The median voter’s ideal attitude is always a
“median voter position” must be determined in order Condorcet winner (Congleton, 2003). Thus the
to calculate the utility terms in (22) and (23). median voter attitude index and the number of votes
BDM defines comparative votes in direct propor- at the median attitude may be determined.
23
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
ck sk ( xk x j xk xi ) 0.5
i k if arg 0
Pi n (31)
ck sk ( xk x j xk xi )
0
‐1 ‐0.6 ‐0.2 0 0.2 0.6 1
k 1
Ri
Figure 5: Scaling conversion formula.
5 RISK PROPENSITY
The following equation (34), expresses (32)
As seen in the previous section, utility calculations more precisely:
involve a risk exponent. This risk exponent is in turn n
n i n i
derived from the expected utility. BDM (1985, 2 E (U ji ) max
i
E (U ji ) min E (U ji )
i
j 1, j i i
j 1, j i
(34)
j 1, j i
Ri
p.157) is first to describe the basis for risk n i n i
max E (U ji ) min E (U ji )
calculation, i
j 1, j i i j 1, j i
I define each nation’s security level as
We still need to know, however, how to calculate the
E (U ji ) . The greater the sum, the more expected utilities in (25), which use a modified
j i notation. BDM (1985) describes:
utility i believes its adversaries expect to
derive from challenging i. … as this sum Thus, the risk terms are calculated by
decreases, i’s relative security increases, so manipulating the alliance portfolios used as
that i is assumed to have adopted safe the policy indicator through simulation to
policies ... locate the best and worse portfolios for any
given nation, where the best and worst are
BDM (1985, p.157) goes on to define: defined in terms of the sum of expected
utilities of all others vis-à-vis the nation in
2 E (U ji ) E (U ji ) max E (U ji ) min
Ri (32) question under the assumption that utilities
E (U ji
) max E (U ji ) min are strictly a function of similarities in
alliance commitments. (Note: That is,
Note that BDM (1997, p.247) reverses the subscripts
temporarily applying the expected utility
of the above, which is inconsistent with his
equations (without risk or uncertainty taken
conceptual basis of security. Further, BDM
into account) as developed in The War Trap,
(1997,p.247) provides an inconsistent transformation
I identify the worst and best case alliance
formula which would not accommodate the range
strategy for each nation each year, using the
1 Ri 1 . Thus, we choose the earlier conversi- original, linear utility functions to define the
24
UNRAVELLING BUENO DE MESQUITA'S GROUP DECISION MODEL
range of possible expected gains or losses for Compromise. Actor i has the upper hand if
each nation. These, then, are utilized to E i (U ij ) 0 , E j (U ji ) 0 and E i (U ij ) E j (U ji ) .
measure risk propensities and thereby to
introduce curvature into the utility functions.) Actor j has the upper hand if
(p. 167-168) E i (U ij ) 0 , E j (U ji ) 0 and E i (U ij ) E j (U ji ) .
This implies a process to first determine the BDM (1997) describes:
expected utilities of equations (25) using ri=1, then
apply (34) and (33) to estimate ri and lastly apply the … both players agree that i has the upper
ri estimates to re-estimate the expected utilities of hand. In this instance, j is expected to be
equations (25). willing to offer concessions to i, although the
concessions are not likely to be as large as
what i would like. The likely resolution of
their exchange is a compromise reflecting the
6 DECISION weighted average of i’s expectation and j’s.
(p. 243-244)
6.1 Offer Categories
However, the weighted average is not clear. BDM
The expected utilities E U ij and E U ji are used
i j
(1994) states (presumably with regard to i having the
‘upper hand’):
to classify the ‘offers’ between all actor pairs into
categories according to potential outcomes as … the concession is assumed to equal the
illustrated in figure 6. An actor may expect to distance on Ra between xi and xj multiplied by
conflict, compromise, capitulate, or stalemate with the ratio of the absolute value of j’s expected
another. Unfortunately no single publication by utility to i’s expected utility. This treats the
BDM explains how to quantify these. compromise as the weighted average of the
perceived enforceability of the demand… (p.
j’s Expected Utility
COMPROMISE 96)
E j U ji
Compromise - CONFLICT
Confrontation - We might interpret this literally as:
i moves part i moves to j
CAPITULATE way to j j
Compel - Confrontation +
xˆ xi x j E i (U ji ) (35)
i moves to j j moves to i
E i U ij E (U ij )
i’s Expected
Compromise + Utility Noting this relates only to the octant labeled
j moves part
Status Quo way to i “Compromise +” in figure 6. Considering the
i stays put COMPROMISE
boundary conditions in this octant, if
Compel +
j moves to i
i j
E (U ij ) E (U ji ) then ˆ
x 0 and actor j does not
STALEMATE
CAPITULATE move from xj and if E i (U ij ) E j (U ji ) then
Figure 6: Classifying the outcome of challenges according xˆ 1 and actor j moves from xj to xi. For the octant
to i’s viewpoint. labelled “Compromise -” we use:
25
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
26
UNRAVELLING BUENO DE MESQUITA'S GROUP DECISION MODEL
We came across an issue with trying to Figure 9: Comparison of results for BDM (1994) (top) and
reproduce the result given by BDM for the our interpretation (below), view from Netherlands.
Netherlands as compared in figure 9. We assert that
the result published by BDM was in error. Our result
showing ‘Others’ as E j U ji against E i U ji for 8 DISCUSSION
i=Luxembourg is compared with BDM’s quoted
As identified earlier, we chose Q=1.0 to reproduce
result in figure 10. This shows 100%
the results above. We observed that a value of Q=0.5
correspondence in terms of quadrant accuracy as for
produces very different results. The following figure
the previous two results. 11 provides an illustrative example.
BDM (1994) summarises the final result: In figure 11, the positions of Greece and
The dominant outcome would be, as Belgium change entire quadrants if Q=1 or Q=0.5 is
indicated above, a lag of 8.35 years. chosen.
However, if the participants were prepared to Recalling that Q relates to the probability of a
bear the costs of slightly prolonged status quo and is an arbitrary parameter, it is not
desirable for results to be so sensitive.
negotiations, then the model’s predicted
We examined the applicability of the
dominant outcome rises to 9.05 years and
interpretation to other examples from later papers.
stabilizes at that point. … The actual Despite the fact that BDM (1994) and BDM (1997)
resolution was for a delay of 8.833 years. differ only in the detailed example used, it is
(p.98)
27
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
28
UNRAVELLING BUENO DE MESQUITA'S GROUP DECISION MODEL
than one in one million. This fulfils Bueno De 1. Given i=1,2,…,n actors, initial positions for each actor
Mesquita’s own prediction that enough material is xi(t=0), ci, si and number of rounds=.
available so that “anyone (may) replicate something 2. Let ri=1
close to his work”! 3. Calculate the pairwise votes:
Concerns with regard to the model’s sensitivity
and convergence have been identified. n xi xk xi x j
Given these concerns, we conclude that adoption v jk ci si
of BDM’s model for agent development would be xmax xmin
i 1
premature at this time.
Then find the maximum value which corresponds to
the Condorcet winner position or median = .
REFERENCES 4. Calculate basic utilities,
r
Black, D. (1948). On the Rationale of Group Decision-
xi x j i
U sii 2 4 0.5 0.5
making. Political Economy 56, No 1, Feb: 23-34. xmax xmin
Congleton, R. D. (2003). The Median Voter Model. The r
Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Kluwer Academic xi x j i
Press: 382-386. U ifi 2 4 0.5 0.5
xmax xmin
Bueno De Mesquita, B. B. (1980). An Expected Utility
Theory of International Conflict. The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Dec), pp. U bii
2 40.5 0.25
xi xi x j r i
Interactions 23: No 3-4 235-266.
Bueno De Mesquita, B. B. (2002). Predicting Politics,
E i U ij s j PiiU sii 1 Pii U ifi 1 s j U sii
Ohio State University Press.
Bueno De Mesquita, B. B. (2009a). A New Model for
QU sqi
(1 Q) TU bii (1 T )U wi
i
Predicting Policy Choices: Preliminary Tests, 50th
Meeting of the International Studies Association, New
E j U ji s j PjjU sjj 1 Pjj U fjj 1 s j U sjj
York, Feb 15-18.
Bueno De Mesquita, B. B. (2009b). The Predictioneer’s QU sqj (1 Q) TU bjj (1 T )U wjj
Game (1st ed.). New York: Random House.
Kollman, K, Miller, J. H. and Page, S.E. eds (2010) If second pass (used the calculated values of ri) then,
Computational models in political economy. MIT go to step 11.
Press.
8. Calculate:
n n n
2 E i (U ji ) max E (U ji ) min E (U ji )
i i
i j 1, j i
i j 1, j i
APPENDIX Ri
j 1, j i
n i n i
max E (U ji ) min E (U ji )
The following summarises the full procedure. i j 1, j i i j 1, j i
29
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
9. Calculate:
1 Ri / 3
ri
1 Ri / 3
10. Go to step 4, using calculated values of ri.
11. Determine new position decisions x, based on rules in
section 5 for octant of Eij(i) vs Eji(j).
12. Increment the rounds, t=t+1
13. If t= then stop.
30