Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
The strengths and weaknesses of agent-based approaches and classical optimization techniques are compared. Their appropriateness for resource allocation problems were resources are distributed and demand is changing is evaluated. We conclude that their properties are complementary and that it seems beneficial to combine the approaches. Some suggestions of such hybrid systems are sketched and two of these are implemented and evaluated in a case study and compared to pure agent and optimization-based solutions. The case study concerns allocation of production and transportation resources in a supply chain. In one of the hybrid systems, optimization techniques were embedded in the agents to improve their decision making capability. In the other system, optimization was used for creating a long-term coarse plan which served as input the agents that adapted it dynamically. The results from the case study indicate that it is possible to capitalize both on the ability of agents to dynamically adapt to changes and on the ability of optimization techniques for finding high quality solutions. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2007 | 10.1007/978-3-540-72830-6_1 | KES-AMSTA |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
classical optimization technique,resource allocation problem,optimization technique,long-term coarse plan,hybrid system,case study concerns allocation,mathematical optimization techniques,case study,high quality solution,optimization-based solution,agent-based approach,resource allocation,computer science,supply chain | Industrial engineering,Computer science,Multi-objective optimization,Resource allocation,Artificial intelligence,Supply chain,Engineering optimization,Strengths and weaknesses,Hybrid system,Machine learning,Management science,Central node | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | Citations |
4496 | 0302-9743 | 17 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.74 | 6 | 3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Paul Davidsson | 1 | 315 | 53.19 |
Jan A. Persson | 2 | 145 | 19.37 |
Johan Holmgren | 3 | 116 | 15.32 |