One reason why Distributed AI (DAI) technology has been deployed in relatively few real-size applications is that it lacks a clear and implementable model of cooperative problem solving which specifies how agents should operate and interact in complex, dynamic and unpredictable environments. As a consequence of the experience gained whilst building a number of DAI systems for industrial applications, a new principled model of cooperation has been developed. This model, called Joint Responsibility, has the notion of joint intentions at its core. It specifies pre-conditions which must be attained before collaboration can commence and prescribes how individuals should behave both when joint activity is progressing satisfactorily and also when it runs into difficulty. The theoretical model has been used to guide the implementation of a general-purpose cooperation framework and the qualitative and quantitative benefits of this implementation have been assessed through a series of comparativ...

Abstract not found

In a multi-agent environment, where self-motivated agents try to pursue their own goals, cooperation cannot be taken for granted. Cooperation must be planned for and achieved through communication and negotiation. We present a logical model of the mental states of the agents based on a representation of their beliefs, desires, intentions, and goals. We present argumentation as an iterative process emerging from exchanges among agents to persuade each other and bring about a change in intentions. We look at argumentation as a mechanism for achieving cooperation and agreements. Using categories identified from human multi-agent negotiation, we demonstrate how the logic can be used to specify argument formulation and evaluation. We also illustrate how the developed logic can be used to describe different types of agents. Furthermore, we present a general Automated Negotiation Agent which we implemented, based on the logical model. Using this system, a user can analyze and explore differe...

Clinical guidelines can be viewed as generic skeletal-plan schemata that represent clinical procedural knowledge and that are instantiated and refined dynamically by care providers over significant time periods. In the Asgaard project, we are investigating a set of tasks that support the application of clinical guidelines by a care provider other than the guideline's designer. We are focusing on application of the guideline, recognition of care providers' intentions from their actions, and critique of care providers' actions given the guideline and the patient's medical record. We are developing methods that perform these tasks in multiple clinical domains, given an instance of a properly represented clinical guideline and an electronic medical patient record. In this paper, we point out the precise domain-specific knowledge required by each method, such as the explicit intentions of the guideline designer (represented as temporal patterns to be achieved or avoided). We present a machine-readable language, called Asbru, to represent and to annotate guidelines based on the task-specific ontology. We also introduce an automated tool for acquisition of clinical guidelines based on the same ontology, developed using the PROTEGE-II framework.

We have been examining mixed-initiative planning systems in the context of command and control or logistical overview situations. In such environments, the human and the computer must work together in a very tightly coupled way to solve problems that neither alone could manage. In this paper, we describe our implementation of a prototype version of such a system, TRAINS-95, which helps a manager solve routing problems in a simple transportation domain. Interestingly perhaps, traditional planning technology does not play a major role in the system, and in fact it is difficult to see how such components might fit into a mixed-initiative system. We describe some of these issues, and present our agenda for future research into mixed-initiative plan reasoning. At this writing, the TRAINS-95 system has been used by more than 100 people to solve simple problems at various conferences and workshops, and in our experiments.

Teamwork in complex, dynamic, multi-agent domains mandates highly flexible coordination and communication. Simply fitting individual agents with precomputed coordination plans will not do, for their inflexibility can cause severe failures in teamwork, and their domain-specificity hinders reusability. Our central hypothesis is that the key to such flexibility and reusability is agent architectures with integrated teamwork capabilities. This fundamental shift in agent architectures is illustrated via an implemented candidate: STEAM. While STEAM is founded on the joint intentions theory, practical operationalization has required it to integrate several key novel concepts: (i) team synchronization to establish joint intentions; (ii) constructs for monitoring joint intentions and repair; and (iii) decision-theoretic communication selectivity (to pragmatically extend the joint intentions theory). Applications in three different complex domains, with empirical results, are presented. 1 1 In...

Coordination, the process by which an agent reasons about its local actions and the (anticipated) actions of others to try and ensure the community acts in a coherent manner, is perhaps the key problem of the discipline of Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI). In order to make advances it is important that the theories and principles which guide this central activity are uncovered and analysed in a systematic and rigourous manner. To this end, this paper models agent communities using a distributed goal search formalism, and argues that commitments (pledges to undertake a specific course of action) and conventions (means of monitoring commitments in changing circumstances) are the foundation of coordination in all DAI systems. 1. The Coordination Problem Participation in any social situation should be both simultaneously constraining, in that agents must make a contribution to it, and yet enriching, in that participation provides resources and opportunities which would otherwise ...

This technical definition will only make sense toe reader by Ch. 4, once goals and management processes have been described. All that matters forrs section is that a difference between goals and perturbance be noted by the reader. Astate perturbance is not a goal, but it arises out of the processing of goals. In Ch. 7, arelation00 perturbance and "emotion" is discussed. 43 . Sloman says of certain moods that they are "persistent states with dispositional power to color and modify a host of other states and processes. Such moodscan39061-6 be caused by cognitive events with semantic content, though they need not be.[...]0-64000 their control function does not require specific semantic content, though theycan0371-62 cognitive processes that do involve semantic content." (Sloman, 1992b Section 6).A 39642 view is taken in (Oatley, 1992). To be more precise, moods are temporary control stateswhich9881-5 the prominence of some motivators while decreasing others. In particular, they affectthe 41330-5 that certain "goal generators" are triggered. Moreover, moods affect the valenceofce 39476 evaluations, and the likelihood of affective evaluations (perhaps by modifying thresholdsofsholds 42 that trigger evaluations). It is not yet clear whether moods as defined here are9531 - or whether they merely emerge as side-effects of functional processes. . A reflex is a ballistic form of behaviour that can be specified by a narrow setw rules based on input integration and a narrow amount of internal state. There aretwo0981 of reflexes: simple reflexes and fixed action patterns. A simple reflex involves oneaction,-43000 a fixed action pattern involves a collection of actions. Usually, at most only asmall-4120 of perceptual feedback influences reflex action. This would require a definit...

RoboCup Chollenge offers a set of chollenges for intelligent ogent reseorchers using a friendly competition in a dynomic, reol-time, multiogent domoin. While RoboCup in generol envisions longer ronge chollenges over the next few decodes, RoboCup Chollenge presents three specific chollenges for the next two yeors: (i / learning of individual agents ond teoms; (ii multi-ogent teom plonning ond plan-execution in service of teomwork; ond (iii) opponent mod- eling. RoboCup Chollenge provides o novel opportunity for mochine leorning, plonning, ond multi-ogent reseorchers -- it not only supplies a concrete domain to evolute their techniques, but also challenges researchers to evolve these techniques to face key constraints fundomentol to this domoin: real-time, uncertainty, ond teamwork.

To build effective planning systems, it is crucial to find the right level of representation: too impoverished, and important actions and goals are impossible to express; too expressive, and planning becomes intractable.