....1
Recall that \$200 is the maximum possible value of E to any client under the TAC parameters.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
... so.2
As computed by Shou-de Lin of the TAC organizing team.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
... goods.3
The general allocation problem is NP-complete, as it is equivalent to the set-packing problem [Garey JohnsonGarey Johnson1979]. Exhaustive search is computationally intractable even with only 8 clients.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
... skyrocketed4
With just 2 high-bidders, the only way to have the price escalate would be if they bid for a combined total of 16 rooms of the same hotel type. That could only happen if all of their clients were to stay in the same hotel on the same night, a very unlikely scenario given the TAC parameters.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
... average.5
In general, ATTac-2000's average score decreased with increasing numbers of high-bidders, as games became more volatile.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
... earlier6
This change has been adopted in the specification of TAC-01.
```.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
```
Peter Stone
2001-09-13