Book cover

Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems

BRACIS 2020: Intelligent Systems pp 140–153 Cite as

Solving Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery Problems Using a Genetic Algorithm

  • Ana Carolina L. C. Queiroz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4095-8796 10 ,
  • Heder S. Bernardino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2012-7802 10 ,
  • Alex B. Vieira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0821-126X 10 &
  • Helio J. C. Barbosa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5810-7554 10 , 11  
  • Conference paper
  • First Online: 13 October 2020

949 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 12320)

In the Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery (MAPD) problem, agents must process a sequence of tasks that may appear in the system in different time-steps. Commonly, this problem has two parts: (i) task allocation, where the agent receives the appropriate task, and (ii) path planning, where the best path for the agent to perform its task, without colliding with other agents, is defined. In this work, we propose an integer-encoded genetic algorithm for solving the task allocation part of the MAPD problem combined with two-path planning algorithms already known in the literature: the Prioritized Planning and the Improved Conflict-Based Search (ICBS). Computational experiments were carried out with different numbers of agents and the frequency of tasks. The results show that the proposed approach achieves better results for large instances when compared to another technique from the literature.

  • Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery
  • Genetic algorithm
  • Real-world application

The authors thank the financial support provided by CAPES, CNPq (grants 312337/2017-5, 312682/2018-2, 311206/2018-2, and 451203/2019-4), FAPEMIG, FAPESP, and UFJF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

https://github.com/carolladeira/MAPD .

https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.wilcoxon.html .

Boyarski, E., et al.: ICBS: improved conflict-based search algorithm for multi-agent pathfinding. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 740–746, July 2015

Google Scholar  

D’Andrea, R.: Guest editorial: a revolution in the warehouse: a retrospective on kiva systems and the grand challenges ahead. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 9 (4), 638–639 (2012)

Article   Google Scholar  

Felner, A., et al.: Search-based optimal solvers for the multi-agent pathfinding problem: summary and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, SOCS 2017, USA, 16–17 June 2017, pp. 29–37. AAAI Press, Pittsburgh, June 2017

Grenouilleau, F., van Hoeve, W., Hooker, J.N.: A multi-label A* algorithm for multi-agent pathfinding. In: Benton, J., Lipovetzky, N., Onaindia, E., Smith, D.E., Srivastava, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS, pp. 181–185 (2019)

Jose, K., Pratihar, D.K.: Task allocation and collision-free path planning of centralized multi-robots system for industrial plant inspection using heuristic methods. Robot. Auton. Syst. 80 , 34–42 (2016)

Li, J., Surynek, P., Felner, A., Ma, H., Kumar, T.K.S., Koenig, S.: Multi-agent path finding for large agents. In: The 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, 27 January–1 February 2019, pp. 7627–7634. AAAI Press, Honolulu (2019)

Li, J., Tinka, A., Kiesel, S., Durham, J.W., Kumar, T.K.S., Koenig, S.: Lifelong multi-agent path finding in large-scale warehouses. CoRR abs/2005.07371 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07371

Liu, C., Kroll, A.: A centralized multi-robot task allocation for industrial plant inspection by using A* and genetic algorithms. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7268, pp. 466–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29350-4_56

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Liu, M., Ma, H., Li, J., Koenig, S.: Task and path planning for multi-agent pickup and delivery. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2019, 13–17 May 2019, pp. 1152–1160. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Montreal (2019)

Ma, H., Hönig, W., Kumar, T.K.S., Ayanian, N., Koenig, S.: Lifelong path planning with kinematic constraints for multi-agent pickup and delivery. In: The 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 7651–7658 (2019)

Ma, H., et al.: Overview: generalizations of multi-agent path finding to real-world scenarios. CoRR abs/1702.05515, pp. 1–4 (2017)

Ma, H., Li, J., Kumar, T.S., Koenig, S.: Lifelong multi-agent path finding for online pickup and delivery tasks. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2017, pp. 837–845. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2017)

Morris, R., et al.: Planning, scheduling and monitoring for airport surface operations. In: Planning for Hybrid Systems, Papers from the 2016 AAAI Workshop, 13 February 2016, vol. WS-16-12, pp. 608–614. AAAI Press, Phoenix (2016)

Sharon, G., Stern, R., Felner, A., Sturtevant, N.R.: Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding. Artif. Intell. 219 , 40–66 (2015)

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Silver, D.: Cooperative pathfinding. In: AIIDE, vol. 1, pp. 117–122 (2005)

Standley, T.S.: Finding optimal solutions to cooperative pathfinding problems. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2010, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 173–178. AAAI Press, Atlanta (2010)

Stern, R., et al.: Multi-agent pathfinding: definitions, variants, and benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, SOCS, Napa, California, pp. 151–159 (2019)

Svancara, J., Vlk, M., Stern, R., Atzmon, D., Barták, R.: Online multi-agent pathfinding. In: The 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, The 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The 9th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 7732–7739 (2019)

Veloso, M.M., Biswas, J., Coltin, B., Rosenthal, S.: CoBots: robust symbiotic autonomous mobile service robots. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, 25–31 July 2015, p. 4423. AAAI Press, Buenos Aires (2015)

Walker, T.T., Sturtevant, N.R., Felner, A.: Extended increasing cost tree search for non-unit cost domains. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 534–540 (2018)

Wurman, P.R., D’Andrea, R., Mountz, M.: Coordinating hundreds of cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses. AI Mag. 29 (1), 9–20 (2008)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

Ana Carolina L. C. Queiroz, Heder S. Bernardino, Alex B. Vieira & Helio J. C. Barbosa

Laboratório Nacional de Computação Científica, Petrópolis, Brazil

Helio J. C. Barbosa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ana Carolina L. C. Queiroz , Heder S. Bernardino , Alex B. Vieira or Helio J. C. Barbosa .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil

Ricardo Cerri

Federal University of ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil

Ronaldo C. Prati

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Queiroz, A.C.L.C., Bernardino, H.S., Vieira, A.B., Barbosa, H.J.C. (2020). Solving Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery Problems Using a Genetic Algorithm. In: Cerri, R., Prati, R.C. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_10

Published : 13 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-61379-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-61380-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

More From Forbes

How to build generative ai agents with joon sung park.

  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to Linkedin

I speak with Joon Sung Park, one of the leading minds in AI, about the future of AI agents.

Introducing “AI in the Real World”

In the coming months, I’ll be hosting a series of in-depth conversations with leading AI researchers where we’ll explore how state-of-the-art models are being applied in the real world. To kick off the series, I speak with Joon Sung Park , a Ph.D. student in computer science at Stanford who works at the intersection of human-computer interaction, NLP, and machine learning. He’s best known for creating LLM-powered agents that communicate, act, and think increasingly like humans. These agents use LLMs as central reasoning engines to make decisions, interact, and otherwise navigate virtual worlds.

Joon started his Ph.D. in 2020, shortly after the release of GPT-3. Along with its fellow “foundation models” (a term coined by Joon's Stanford peers ), GPT-3 exhibits a remarkable ability to generate, synthesize, and analyze natural language. While traditional ML models have narrowly defined remits, foundation models can generalize to tasks far beyond their original training. This breakthrough led Joon and his colleagues to ask: “Now that we have these models, what are we going to do with them? They have incredible capacity, but can they enable us to do something truly new and unique?”

Joon’s research seeks to answer this question by applying LLMs to a long-standing challenge in computer science: the creation of AI agents that can authentically simulate human behavior. This ambition traces back to the earliest days of AI in the 1950s, when the field’s founders dreamed of replicating human cognition in computational form. Anticipating present-day debates around AGI, their goal was to endow AI systems with human-level intelligence, including the abilities to learn, solve problems, and take action in open-ended environments.

Central to Joon’s research is the insight that LLMs, trained on massive amounts of data from the web, digitized books, and Wikipedia, possess an in-built understanding of human behavior. In his paper, “ Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior, ” published on ArXiv last April, he and his coauthors populated a virtual town, which they named “Smallville,” with 25 AI agents. These agents paired ChatGPT with a technical architecture that enabled long-term memory, reflection, and planning. Over the course of two days, they organically engaged with one another, forming relationships, sharing information, and reacting to unforeseen events.

The implications of Joon’s work extend far beyond Smallville’s sandbox. Generative agents promise to significantly enhance our understanding of—and our ability to create solutions for—our interconnected “bits and atoms” world. Through high-fidelity simulations, social scientists gain a laboratory for exploring the complexities of large-scale group dynamics. Policymakers can use these tools to model the effects of different forms of legislation, while architects can draw on them to optimize development plans and predict potential consequences. Businesses also stand to benefit immensely, as they can deploy generative agents to simulate customer interactions, test new products, and refine operational strategies without the headaches that attend human studies.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

In what follows, I explore the core insights that I gathered from our conversation. To learn more from Joon, listen in on our full conversation here !

LLMs represent a new paradigm for agent design

Historically, agent design has leaned on rule-based systems, such as finite-state machines and behavior trees. These methods are well-suited for simple tasks yet struggle with the dynamic, unpredictable nature of real-world interactions. The need to hard-code every possible behavior prevents these agents from responding to unscripted scenarios. While advances in learning-based strategies, including reinforcement learning, allow for agents that can adapt to new information, their application has been largely limited to competitive settings where reward functions are clearly defined.

LLMs address many of these limitations. Speaking of his research, Joon stresses: “LLMs are really what made this possible. That is really the fundamental tech stack that we needed.” Armed with a broad-based understanding of natural language, LLMs can predict the next action in a sequence based on the context they’re both provided with and discern. This eliminates the need for manual scripting, effectively automating the generation of believable agent behavior.

As Joon puts it: “What LLMs change is that they give us a single ingredient, which is given a micro-context, micro-moment... Given that micro-moment description, a language model is extremely good at predicting the next moment.” Coupled with an architecture that stores, retrieves, and synthesizes “memories” (a comprehensive log of an agent’s experiences), LLMs enable the creation of AI agents that can coherently act in and respond to ever-changing environments.

Tool use and simulations are the two main focuses of agent R&D

To better situate his research, Joon describes two R&D directions in the agent space: “We're seeing a split where there’s one community who's now deeply interested in agents using tools, and another community that is deeply interested in this idea of ‘can we simulate?’”

The first camp is building tool-based agents that automate complex, multi-step workflows. Capable of tasks like ordering pizza, buying plane tickets, and creating slide decks, these agents rely on LLMs’ advanced NLP abilities to perform functions that go well beyond basic scripting. This approach has roots in early AI agents like Clippy, the friendly paperclip that assisted Microsoft Word users based on their past interactions with the software. A more recent example is OpenAI’s GPT store, where users can share customized versions of the startup’s general-purpose chatbots.

Joon’s research falls into the second camp that’s focused on simulation-based agents. Here, the goal is to realistically replicate human behavior and social dynamics in virtual worlds. Originating in the gaming industry, simulation-based agents can be applied in any field where modeling complex human interactions proves beneficial, including business, social science, and policymaking.

Despite their differing focuses today, Joon speculates that these communities will converge in the future. In both cases, LLMs serve as the foundational architectural layer.

ChatGPT is not the “killer app” for LLMs

We’re already seeing both startups and established companies apply LLMs in incredibly valuable ways, including to personalize marketing campaigns, boost sales efficiency, and streamline software development. Yet Joon questions whether ChatGPT, for all its popularity, is truly the “killer app” for these models.

Killer apps, he argues, do more than attract a vast user base: they unlock and leverage the novel capabilities of a given technology. He points to Microsoft Excel as an example, noting how it revolutionized the manipulation of tabular data and, in doing so, transformed PCs into essential tools for both businesses and consumers. In the case of LLMs, the equivalent would be an app that’s uniquely enabled by its underlying model and ushers in a new phase of AI utility and adoption.

By this definition, ChatGPT might not make the cut. Joon describes this chatbot as “a fairly simple wrap” that fails to fully exploit LLMs’ powers to create, reason, and plan. Its blank text box places the burden on users to articulate their intent, provide all relevant context, and evaluate the model’s responses. Then comes the problem of “unknown unknowns”: the fact that users lack visibility into the LLM’s vast possibility space. The “killer app” for LLMs should help users intentionally navigate this space through thoughtful product design. Joon issues a challenge to builders: “What is going to be the application that really adds value in a much more generalizable way?”

Multimodal models promise step-change improvements in agent performance

Multimodal models, which can process images, audio, and video along with text, promise to bring a new level of depth and nuance to agent interactions. For example, a multimodal AI agent could discern a user’s emotions from non-verbal cues such as tone of voice, gestures, and facial expressions. It could also act directly on multimedia inputs from its environment without first converting them into text: an extra step that may cause valuable data to be lost in translation.

As Joon explains of Smallville: “We used our system to translate the visual world into natural language and then fed it to the agent architecture, which used our language model to process it. WIth models that are able to deal with multimodal inputs, we might actually be able to bypass that phase and go straight from ‘Here is the visual world or space that you're seeing right now’ to ‘That is your memory, now act on it.’”

Soft-edged problems are better bets for AI builders

Joon provides a strategic framework for AI builders to identify the most promising agent applications. It turns on the distinction between hard-edged and soft-edged problems.

Hard-edged problems are rule-based and tolerate no errors. Their outcomes are strictly binary: either success or failure. Tasks like flight bookings, financial transactions, and medical diagnoses fall in this category. Here, mistakes can have serious consequences. By contrast, soft-edged problems are more subjective and allow for a range of acceptable outcomes. Here, the focus is on adaptability and progressive improvement. Examples include content generation, personalized recommendations, and interactive entertainment. As Joon elaborates, “These are problems where we can increasingly hill-climb toward being better. At a certain level, the technology starts to actually become useful.”

Reflecting on failed AI agents of the past, like Clippy, Joon highlights the pitfalls of applying this technology in hard-edged situations. Without a deep understanding of users’ intentions and goals, agents can be perceived as unhelpful or, worse, actively annoying. This has led to cycles of initial excitement followed by user frustration and disillusionment among developers. Joon suggests that while LLMs may shift this dynamic, it’s more likely that founders tackling hard-edged problems might once again be let down. “My hunch is that we will likely see a very similar pattern arise, at least for the foreseeable future,” he notes.

For entrepreneurs, soft-edged problem spaces represent a safer path. Here, the bar for shipping a product is not perfection but the added value that it delivers: a more attainable standard that allows builders to iterate on their products alongside their users. This was a core motivation for Joon and his collaborators to work on simulation. “Simulation is the prime example of a soft-edged problem space because the simulation only has to be ‘good enough’ for it to start being useful,” he explains. Other “good enough” use cases include marketing, sales, customer service, and product design. In these fields, the presence of multiple viable solutions is a feature, not a bug. This flexibility creates more opportunities for founders to differentiate their products.

Agents need to solve real user needs

The success of an LLM-powered agent turns on more just than the sophistication of its underlying model. As Joon puts it: “One thing I'm curious about, that I don't think a lot of us are thinking about, is not the technology part, but the interaction. How are these agents going to be used? In what way? [...] That's where agents in the past have failed. There was really cool technology, but we didn't seriously ask ourselves, is this something that people really need? And does the cost-benefit analysis of using these agents, and learning how to use them well, really make sense for a broad user base?”

Rather than lead with the technology, AI builders should prioritize understanding and solving real user needs, focusing on the proverbial “10x better” experience that agents can deliver. As Steve Jobs famously put it: start with the user experience, then work backward to the technology.

Grounding, representativeness, and scalability are all unsolved challenges

Ultimately, the aim is for AI simulations to accurately model real-world, rather than make-believe, scenarios. As Joon articulates: “I think it's going to be far more interesting if we can make these simulations closely model our actual human communities. So it's not just fictional but actually has grounding. That's going to open up from our perspective an entirely new set of application spaces as well as research impact.”

To achieve this goal, researchers face several obstacles. Many third-party AI models have safety measures that limit the range of human behaviors they can express. ChatGPT, for example, defers from arguing, reciprocating affection, and expressing personal beliefs. Joon points out that open-source models, which lack these restraints, could be a potential workaround—yet there are also a myriad of risks, from toxic content to targeted persuasion, that arise when models can more easily go “off the rails.”

In addition, today’s generative models reflect a specific demographic: the “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) user. “Right now, ChatGPT really is an aggregate personality from the web. If you're looking for minority voices in these chatbots, they'll likely struggle,” Joon relays. Developing models that represent broader slices of humanity is crucial for creating simulations that are not only more inclusive but also more accurate.

Another challenge lies in scaling simulations. Joon and his peers’ Smallville experiment costs thousands of dollars in token credits, despite featuring only 25 agents and lasting just two days. More cost-efficient strategies could involve parallelizing agents and creating models specifically for simulations. On this front, Joon is hopeful: ”In general, with advances in underlying models, we believe that agents’ performance will improve.”

Classic product principles still apply when building with LLMs

When thinking about AI’s future, Joon often looks back to the field’s founding moments. As he shares: “I get inspired by insights that had an impact and stood the test of time. [...] I personally think all the great ideas are sort of timeless. Just because the current hype cycle is over doesn't mean they're less interesting or less meaningful.” He cites Allen Newell and Herbert Simon, two of AI’s early pioneers, as abiding influences.

This perspective is especially relevant for founders focused on generative AI. For all the advances of cutting-edge foundation models, the time-tested principles of product development—choosing problems that allow for iterative gains, baking user feedback loops into the product’s design, understanding and solving real needs, and crafting interactions that deliver tangible value to users—haven’t changed. Building with LLMs involves finding the right balance between leveraging the technology’s novel capabilities and adhering to best practices for shipping sticky products.

Stay tuned for our next conversation in this series, where we’ll dive further into the realm of AI-powered agents and their wide-ranging applications.

Joanne Chen

  • Editorial Standards
  • Reprints & Permissions

IMAGES

  1. examples of problem solving agents

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

  2. Heterogeneous group problem solving process.

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

  3. examples of problem solving agents

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

  4. What are the five components of Problem-Solving Agents?

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

  5. examples of problem solving agents

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

  6. PPT

    problem solving by heterogeneous agents

VIDEO

  1. difference between homogeneous and heterogeneous mixture

  2. Definition of Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Mixture

  3. heterogeneous mixture practical #chemistry #students

  4. Difference between Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Mixture

  5. Study of Malaria ll an Example of Biologica Method Chapter#02 Biology Class 9

  6. Problem Solving Agents

COMMENTS

  1. Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents

    We find that while a collection of bounded but diverse agents can locate optimal solutions to difficult problems, problem solving firms can exhibit arbitrary marginal returns to problem solvers and that the order that problem solvers are applied to a problem can matter, so that the standard story of decreasing returns to scale may not apply to p...

  2. PDF Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents

    Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents Lu Hong⁄and Scott E. Pageyz October 22, 1998 Abstract A substantial amount of economic activity involves problem solving, yet economics has few, if any, formal models to address how agents of limited abilities flnd good solutions to di-cult problems.

  3. Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents

    This paper constructs a model of heterogeneous agents of bounded abilities and analyzes their individual and collective performance, finding that while a collection of bounded but diverse agents can locate optimal solutions to difficult problems, problem solving firms can exhibit arbitrary marginal returns to problem solvers. Expand

  4. PDF Collective Problem-Solving by Heterogeneous Agents in Network Environments

    Three key aspects have been shown to affect performance in collaborative work environments: (1) the tradeoff between exploitation of known solutions and exploration for novel ones induced by the amount of information shared between workers, (2) the search strategy invo...

  5. Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents

    In this paper, we construct a model of heterogeneous agents of bounded abilities and analyze their individual and collective performance. By heterogeneity, we mean differences in how...

  6. DeepHAM: A Global Solution Method for Heterogeneous Agent Models with

    Heterogeneous Agent Models (DeepHAM), which satis es all the requirements listed above. We formulate a HA model with Nagents, where Nis large when we aim to solve a problem with a continuum of agents. To solve HA models, the fundamental objects of interest are agents' value and policy functions. A complication arises from the fact that these ...

  7. PDF Econometrica, Vol. 89, No. 5 (September, 2021), 2375-2408

    large class of heterogeneous-agent problems. We combine this algorithm with a system-atic approach to composing and inverting Jacobians to solve for general equilibrium impulse responses. We obtain a rapid procedure for likelihood-based estimation and computation of nonlinear perfect-foresight transitions. We apply our methods to three

  8. Solving and Simulating Models with Heterogeneous Agents and Aggregate

    1. Introduction The development of computational algorithms to solve economic models with heterogeneous agents and aggregate uncertainty started in the second half of the 1990s.

  9. PDF DeepHAM: A Global Solution Method for Heterogeneous Agent Models with

    Heterogeneous Agent Models (DeepHAM), which satisfies all the requirements listed above. We formulate a HA model with Nagents, where Nis large when we aim to solve a problem with a continuum of agents. To solve HA models, the fundamental objects of interest are agents' value and policy functions.

  10. Solving discrete time heterogeneous agent models with aggregate risk

    One of the most popular and powerful of these methods was originally developed by ). This method extends perturbation methods to heterogeneous agent environments, that is, it builds on the methods often used to solve dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models with a representative agent (see, e.g., Schmitt-Grohé and Uribe )).

  11. PDF Solving Heterogeneous-agent Models With Parameterized Cross-sectional

    A new algorithm is developed to solve models with heterogeneous agents and aggregate uncertainty. Projection methods are the main building blocks ... • Individual policy functions that solve the agent's maximization problem. • A wage and a rental rate that are determined by 3 and 4, respectively.

  12. Experiments with Heterogenous Automata-Based Multi-agent Systems

    Abstract. We present a theoretical framework and an experimental tool to study behavior of heterogeneous multi-agent systems composed of the two classes of automata-based agents: Cellular Automata (CA) and Learning Automata (LA). Our general aim is to use this framework to solve global optimization problems in a distributed way using the ...

  13. A method for solving and estimating heterogeneous agent macro models

    Due to this challenge, heterogeneous agent models have yet to reach widespread adoption, particularly among central banks and policy institutions. In this paper, I develop a general, efficient, and easy-to-use computational method for solving heterogeneous agent models with aggregate shocks.

  14. PDF Solving Heterogeneous Agent Models: an Application to Asset Pricing

    heterogeneous agents in intertemporal stochastic models and to develop numerical algorithms to solve these kind of models. It is well-known that solving dynamic heterogeneous agent models is a challenging problem, since in these models the distribution of wealth and other characteristics evolve endogenously over time.

  15. Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents

    Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents. Lu Hong and Scott E. Page. Journal of Economic Theory, 2001, vol. 97, issue 1, 123-163 Date: 2001 References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc Citations: View citations in EconPapers (138) Track citations by RSS feed.

  16. Learning Heterogeneous Agent Cooperation via Multiagent ...

    We use heterogeneous benchmark tasks to demonstrate that (1) HLT promotes the success rate in cooperative heterogeneous tasks; (2) HLT is an effective approach to solving the policy version iteration problem; (3) HLT provides a practical way to assess the difficulty of learning each role in a heterogeneous team. Previous article in issue

  17. A method for solving and estimating heterogeneous agent macro models

    fixed-point problem: each firm's investment decision depends on its expectation of the dynamics of the distribution, and the dynamics of the distribution depend on firms' in-vestment decisions. This infinite-dimensional fixed-point problem is at the heart of the computational challenges faced by the heterogeneous agent literature.

  18. PDF Solving discrete time heterogeneous agent models with aggregate risk

    to heterogeneous agent environments, i.e., it builds on the methods often used to solve dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models with a representative agent (see, e.g., Schmitt-Groh e and Uribe,2004). Our paper restates this procedure and additionally shows how the necessary dimensionality reduction of the heterogeneous agent model can

  19. Solving Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery Problems Using a Genetic

    In the Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery (MAPD) problem, agents must process a sequence of tasks that may appear in the system in different time-steps. Commonly, this problem has two parts: (i) task allocation, where the agent receives the appropriate task, and (ii) path planning, where the best path for the agent to perform its task, without ...

  20. Solving Heterogeneous Agent Models with the Master Equation

    This paper proposes an analytic representation of perturbations in heterogeneous agent economies with aggregate shocks. Treating the underlying distribution as an explicit state variable, a single value function defined on an infinite-dimensional state space provides a fully recursive representation of the economy: the 'Master Equation' introduced in the mathematics mean field games ...

  21. Solving heterogeneous-agent models by projection and perturbation

    Abstract. The paper proposes a numerical solution method for general equilibrium models with a continuum of heterogeneous agents that combines elements of projection and of perturbation methods. The basic idea is to solve first for the stationary solution of the model, without aggregate shocks but with fully specified idiosyncratic shocks.

  22. PDF Solving Heterogeneous Agent Models with Dynare

    Continuum of agents Individual policy functions that solve the agent™s maximization problem A wage and a rental rate given by equations above. A transition law for the cross-sectional distribution of capital, that is consistent with the investment policy function. ft = beginning-of-period cross-sectional distribution of capital

  23. Solving the puzzle of Long Covid

    Because Long Covid is a nonmonolithic heterogeneous entity, it is unlikely that a single or a few biomarkers will explain its vast complexity. ... Therapeutics that target these pathways, such as antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents, microbiome restoration, and anticoagulant drugs, may ameliorate symptoms. ... Solving the puzzle of Long Covid ...

  24. Heterogeneous Agents in the Macroeconomy: Reduced-Heterogeneity

    The key tool to model agent heterogeneity is the class of models with uninsurable idiosyncratic risks, which have different names in the literature: They are called either the Bewley-Huggett-Imohoroglu-Aiyagari models, or the Standard Incomplete Market model (SIM), or even simply Heterogeneous Agent models.

  25. How to Build Generative AI Agents with Joon Sung Park

    I speak with Joon Sung Park, a leading mind in AI, about the future of generative AI agents. We discuss how LLMs are transforming AI agent design, survey the challenges we've yet to solve, and ...