Improving the Robustness of Team Collaboration through Analysis of Qualitative Interactions

Members of effective teams must have knowledge about each others future actions. Typically, this is done through messages or precomputed divisions of labor. The former requires ongoing communication between the agents and the latter constrains the autonomy of the individual agents. We introduce coordination rules that facilitate collaboration between autonomous agents when communication is lost. By envisioning the results of all possible plan executions for each agent, we identify which decisions result in the greatest increase of within-team uncertainty. If removing this action does not significantly reduce the expected utility of the plan, we create a coordination rule, a statement that the agent will or will not take a particular action in some possible future. Coordination rules facilitate collaboration by improving state estimation and prediction by teammates. To accomplish this, we make the following contributions. First, we identify qualitative interactions by representing the space of decisions made by the agents in plan-with-options and their consequences in a factored envisionment that compactly represents multi-agent simulations. Second, we define two classes of within-team uncertainty metrics with respect to the envisionment. Third, we present an evaluation of the effects of coordination rules on action selection in three scenarios. In all three scenarios, coordination rules enabled extended planning horizons and reduced planning times with no significant effect on plan quality.

[1]  Scott D. Lathrop,et al.  Exploring the Functional Advantages of Spatial and Visual Cognition From an Architectural Perspective , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Hybrid Qualitative Simulation of Military Operations , 2011, IAAI.

[3]  Dana S. Nau,et al.  Translating HTNs to PDDL: A Small Amount of Domain Knowledge Can Go a Long Way , 2009, IJCAI.

[4]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  From One to Many: Planning for Loosely Coupled Multi-Agent Systems , 2008, ICAPS.

[5]  J. Trafton,et al.  Incorporating Mental Simulation for a More Effective Robotic Teammate , 2008, AAAI.

[6]  Nikos A. Vlassis,et al.  Optimal and Approximate Q-value Functions for Decentralized POMDPs , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[7]  Jeff G. Schneider,et al.  Approximate solutions for partially observable stochastic games with common payoffs , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[8]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Sapa: A Multi-objective Metric Temporal Planner , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Neil Immerman,et al.  The Complexity of Decentralized Control of Markov Decision Processes , 2000, UAI.

[10]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Cooperative Problem-solving Process , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Model Decomposition and Simulation: A Component Based Qualitative Simulation Algorithm , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[13]  James A. Hendler,et al.  HTN Planning: Complexity and Expressivity , 1994, AAAI.

[14]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intention = Choice + Commitment , 1987, AAAI.

[15]  P. Langley The cognitive systems paradigm , 2012 .

[16]  Paul Bello,et al.  Cognitive Foundations for a Computational Theory of Mindreading , 2012 .

[17]  Frans A. Oliehoek,et al.  The MultiAgent Decision Process toolbox: Software for decision-theoretic planning in multiagent-systems , 2008 .

[18]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[19]  Paolo Traverso,et al.  Automated Planning: Theory & Practice , 2004 .

[20]  Håkan L. S. Younes,et al.  PPDDL 1 . 0 : An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Planning Domains with Probabilistic Effects , 2004 .

[21]  eduMilind Tambe tambe Âóùöòòð Óó Öøø¬ Blockin , 2002 .

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

[23]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  PDDL-the planning domain definition language , 1998 .

[24]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Readings in qualitative reasoning about physical systems , 1990 .