Execution monitoring in multi-agent environments

Agents in dynamic multi-agent environments must monitor their peers and the environment to execute individual and group plans, to ascertain their progress, and to detect failures. In practice, however, agents cannot continuously monitor all surroundings and their peers. This leads to uncertainty about monitored agents' states, and aggravates computational requirements. A key open question is thus how to limit monitoring activities while providing effective monitoring: The Monitoring Selectivity Problem. We investigate this question in the context of monitoring in teams of cooperation agents, in three complex, dynamic multi-agent domains, and in service of different monitoring tasks: Monitoring for coordination and teamwork failures, and monitoring distributed teams via their communications. We provide empirical and analytical answers to the monitoring selectivity problem, via Socially-Attentive Monitoring, which focuses on using knowledge about the relationships between monitored agents and the procedures used to maintain these relationships. We explore a family of socially attentive teamwork failure-detection algorithms under varying conditions of task distribution and uncertainty. We show that a centralized scheme using a complex algorithm trades correctness for completeness and requires monitoring all teammates. In contrast, a simple distributed teamwork-monitoring algorithm exploits agents' local state and results in correct and complete detection of teamwork failures, despite relying on limited, uncertain knowledge, and monitoring only key agents in a team. In monitoring a distributed team, we present heuristics for talking monitoring uncertainty (which results from the limited overheard communications), and provide empirical results demonstrating that socially attentive techniques can significantly reduce the uncertainty in such monitoring. Furthermore, we explore monitoring algorithms which trade-off efficiency for expressivity's, resulting in a limited-expressivity's algorithm that can detect failures and provide high-accuracy monitoring of a team and its members, using a single, constant-space structure. In addition, we report on the design, constant space, structure. In addition, we report on the design of a socially attentive monitoring system and demonstrate its generality in monitoring several coordination relationships in providing quantitative teamwork evaluation, and in diagnosing detected failures.

[1]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Rationale-Based Monitoring for Planning in Dynamic Environments , 1998, AIPS.

[2]  Robert P. Goldman,et al.  A Bayesian Model of Plan Recognition , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  Distributed diagnosis by vivid agents , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[4]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Modeling and Diagnosing Problem-Solving System Behavior , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[6]  Ashwin Ram,et al.  Needles in Spatial a Haystack : Plan Recognition in Large Domains Involving Multiple Agents , 1998 .

[7]  R. James Firby,et al.  An Investigation into Reactive Planning in Complex Domains , 1987, AAAI.

[8]  M. F. Mar,et al.  ModSAF Behavior Simulation and Control , 1993 .

[9]  Brian C. Williams,et al.  Diagnosing Multiple Faults , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Mark Klein,et al.  Exception handling in agent systems , 1999, AGENTS '99.

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

[12]  Milind Tambe,et al.  A synergy of agent components: social comparison for failure detection , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[13]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Blissful Ignorance: Knowing Just Enough to Coordinate Well , 1995, ICMAS.

[14]  Daniel E. O'Leary Models of Consensus for Multiple Agent Systems , 1994, UAI.

[15]  R C KLEIN WHAT'S WRONG WITH US? , 1965, The Ohio dental journal.

[16]  David Atkinson,et al.  Generating Perception Requests and Expectations to Verify the Execution of Plans , 1986, AAAI.

[17]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Monitoring Strategies for Embedded Agents: Experiments and Analysis , 1996, Adapt. Behav..

[18]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  COLLAGEN: when agents collaborate with people , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[19]  Milind Tambe,et al.  I'm OK, you're OK, we're OK: experiments in distributed and centralized socially attentive monitoring , 1999, AGENTS '99.

[20]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Monitoring the Progress of Anytime Problem-Solving , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[21]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  Generalized Plan Recognition , 1986, AAAI.

[22]  Jeff Rickel,et al.  Virtual Humans for Team Training in Virtual Reality , 1999 .

[23]  R. Arkin,et al.  Behavioral diversity in learning robot teams , 1998 .

[24]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Means-End Plan Recognition - Towards a Theory of Reactive Recognition , 1994, KR.

[25]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  The Interval Reduction Strategy for Monitoring Cupcake Problems , 1994 .

[26]  Weixiong Zhang,et al.  Towards flexible teamwork in persistent teams , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[27]  Peter van Beek,et al.  Resolving Plan Ambiguity for Cooperative Response Generation , 1991, IJCAI.

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