A Tuning Machine for Cooperative Problem Solving

In this paper we aim to formally model individual, social and collective motivational attitudes in teams of agents involved in Cooperative Problem Solving. Particular attention is given to the strongest motivational attitude, collective commitment, which leads to team action. First, building on our previous work, a logical framework is sketched in which social commitments and collective intentions are formalized. Then, different versions of collective commitments are given, reflecting different aspects of Cooperative Problem Solving, and applicable in different situations. The definitions differ with respect to the aspects of teamwork of which the agents involved are aware, and the kind of awareness present within a team. In this way a kind of tuning mechanism is provided for the system developer to tune a version of collective commitment fitting the circumstances. Finally, we focus attention on a few exemplar versions of collective commitment resulting from instantiating the general tuning scheme, and sketch for which kinds of organization and application domains they are appropriate.

[1]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[2]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Epistemic logic for AI and computer science , 1995, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[3]  Victor Lesser.  ICMAS-95 : proceedings First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, June 12-14, 1995, San Francisco, California , 1995 .

[4]  Michael Luck,et al.  Agent technology: Enabling next generation computing , 2003 .

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

[6]  Rineke,et al.  Collective Commitments , 2001 .

[7]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Evolution of Collective Commitment during Teamwork , 2002, Fundam. Informaticae.

[8]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[9]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[10]  Krister Segerberg,et al.  Bringing it about , 1989, J. Philos. Log..

[11]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Collective Intentions , 2002, Fundam. Informaticae.

[12]  Michael Luck,et al.  Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems , 1995 .

[13]  Gil Tidhar,et al.  Social and Individual Commitment , 1996, PRICAI Workshop on Intelligent Agent Systems.

[14]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[15]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Intentional Agents and Goal Formation , 1997, ATAL.

[16]  Joseph Y. Halpern.  The Effect of Bounding the Number of Primitive Propositions and the Depth of Nesting on the Complexity of Modal Logic , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. W: C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lesperance (eds.) Intelligent Agents VII: Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages. , 2001 .

[18]  Anna Maria Radzikowska,et al.  Epistemic Approach to Actions with Typical Effects , 1995, ECSQARU.

[19]  Anna Maria Radzikowska,et al.  Actions with Typical Effects: Epistemic Characterization of Scenarios , 1995, ICMAS.

[20]  Douglas A. Johnson,et al.  Theories of self-managing work teams , 1994 .

[21]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  Why is Modal Logic So Robustly Decidable? , 1996, Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models.

[22]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Collective Motivational Attitudes in Cooperative Problem Solving , 1999, CEEMAS.

[23]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Cooperative Problem Solving , 1999 .

[24]  M. Georgeff,et al.  Social Plans: A Preliminary Report , 1992 .

[25]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Languages , 2000 .

[26]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Proceedings of the first international workshop on formal approaches to multi-agent systems, FAMAS'03 , 2003 .

[27]  W. V. Quine.  Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes , 1956 .

[28]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Rational Teams: Logical Aspects of Multi-Agent Systems , 2004, Fundam. Informaticae.

[29]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  Agents that Know How to Play , 2004, Fundam. Informaticae.

[30]  Rohit Parikh.  Levels of Knowledge in Distributed Computing , 1986, LICS.

[31]  Ullrich Hustadt,et al.  On Evaluating Decision Procedures for Modal Logics , 1997 .

[32]  Ullrich Hustadt,et al.  On Evaluating Decision Procedures for Modal Logic , 1997, IJCAI.

[33]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Grounding We-Intentions In Individual Social Attitudes , 2003 .

[34]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations , 1995, ICMAS.

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

[36]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue , 2000, ATAL.

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

[38]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  A reconfiguration algorithm for distributed problem solving , 2001 .

[39]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Levels of knowledge in distributed systems , 1992 .

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

[41]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

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

[43]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  The role of dialogue in collective problem solving , 2000 .