Multi-Agent System Support for Scheduling Aircraft De-icing

Results from disaster research suggest that methods for coordination between individual emergency responders and organizations should recognize the independence and autonomy of these actors. These actor features are key factors in effective adaptation and improvisation of response to emergency situations which are inherently uncertain. Autonomy and adaptability are also well-known aspects of a multi-agent system (MAS). In this paper we present two MAS strategies that can effectively handle aircraft deicing incidents. These MAS strategies help improve to prevent and reduce e.g. airplane delays at deicing stations due to changing weather conditions or incidents at the station, where aircraft agents adopting pre-made plans that would act on behalf of aircraft pilots or companies, would only create havoc. Herein each agent using its own decision mechanism deliberates about the uncertainty in the problem domain and the preferences (or priorities) of the agents. Furthermore, taking both these issues into account each proposed MAS strategy outperforms a naive first-come, first-served coordination strategy. The simulation results help pilots and companies taking decisions with respect to the scheduling of the aircraft for deicing when unexpected incidents occur: they provide insights in the impacts and means for robust selection of incident-specific strategies on e.g. deicing station delays of (individual) aircraft.

[1]  Maria L. Gini,et al.  Evaluating risk: flexibility and feasibility in multi-agent contracting , 1999, AGENTS '99.

[2]  R. Kolisch,et al.  Heuristic algorithms for solving the resource-constrained project scheduling problem: Classification and computational analysis , 1998 .

[3]  Liz Sonenberg,et al.  Investigating Commitment Flexibility in Multi-Agent Contracts , 2002 .

[4]  Joanne E. Hale,et al.  A Layered Communication Architecture for the Support of Crisis Response , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[5]  William J. O'Brien,et al.  Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling: Past Work and New Directions 1 , 2001 .

[6]  Russell R. Dynes,et al.  Problems in emergency planning , 1983 .

[7]  Rainer Kolisch,et al.  Experimental investigation of heuristics for resource-constrained project scheduling: An update , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Jeroen Valk Coordination among autonomous planners , 2005 .

[9]  Christian Artigues,et al.  Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling , 2008 .

[10]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Multiagent coordination in tightly coupled task scheduling , 1997 .

[11]  Sander M. Bohte,et al.  Improving Patient Schedules by Multi-agent Pareto Appointment Exchanging , 2006 .

[12]  Russell R. Dynes Governmental Systems for Disaster Management , 2000 .

[13]  Russell R. Dynes,et al.  Disaster Reduction: The Importance Of Adequate Assumptions About Social Organization , 1993 .

[14]  Cees Witteveen,et al.  Multi-agent Planning An introduction to planning and coordination , 2005 .

[15]  R. Kolisch,et al.  Heuristic algorithms for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem: classification and computational analysis , 1999 .

[16]  E. L. Quarantelli,et al.  A Half Century Of Social Science Disaster Research:Selected Major Findings And Their Applicability , 2003 .

[17]  Erik Demeulemeester,et al.  Resource-constrained project scheduling: A survey of recent developments , 1998, Comput. Oper. Res..

[18]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Leveled Commitment Contracts and Strategic Breach , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  R. Adams,et al.  The Search for a System , 1987 .

[20]  Han La Poutré,et al.  A Decommitment Strategy in a Competitive Multi-agent Transportation Setting , 2003, AMEC.