Intention Reconcilation in the Context of Teamwork: An Initial Empirical Investigation

With growing opportunities for individually motivated agents to work collaboratively to satisfy shared goals, it becomes increasingly important to design agents that can make intelligent decisions in the context of commitments to group activities. In particular, agents need to be able to reconcile their intentions to do team-related actions with other, conflicting intentions. We present the SPIRE experimental system that allows the process of intention reconciliation in team contexts to be simulated and studied. SPIRE enables us to examine the influence of team norms and environmental factors on team members faced with conflicting intentions, as well as the effectiveness of different intention-reconciliation strategies. We discuss results from pilot experiments that confirm the reasonableness of our model of the problem and illustrate some of the issues involved, and we lay the groundwork for future experiments that will allow us to derive principles for designers of collaboration-capable agents.

[1]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Planning and Acting Together , 1999, AI Mag..

[2]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[3]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Reciprocity: a foundational principle for promoting cooperative behavior among self-interested agents , 1996 .

[4]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[5]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[6]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Software Agents , 1996, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[7]  M. Pollack,et al.  Evaluating options in a context , 1998 .

[8]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Socially Responsible Decision Making by Autonomous Agents , 1999 .

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  SharedPlans in Electronic Commerce , 1999 .

[11]  L. Iannaccone.  Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-riding in Cults, Communes, and Other Collectives , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Towards Flexible Teamwork , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  H. Hollander.  A Social Exchange Approach to Voluntary Cooperation , 1990 .

[14]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Rules of Encounter - Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers , 1994 .

[15]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Satisfying user preferences while negotiating meetings , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  The Evolution of Sharedplans , 1999 .

[17]  Gil Tidhar,et al.  Planned Team Activity , 1992, MAAMAW.

[18]  Keith S. Decker,et al.  Coordinated hospital patient scheduling , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[19]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Socially Conscious Decision-Making , 2003, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[20]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Rational Belief Revision , 1991, KR.

[21]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  On the Synthesis of Useful Social Laws for Artificial Agent Societies (Preliminary Report) , 1992, AAAI.

[22]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  On Acting Together , 1990, AAAI.