Action Selection and Individuation in Agent Based Modelling

This paper is a tutorial on action selection for Agent-Based Modelling (ABM). Having a clear idea of how you are organizing your agent’s intelligence will make your code cleaner and easier to maintain, and your models easier to communicate to others. This paper describes four means of orgainizing agent action selection in increasing order of complexity These are: environmental determinism, finite state machines, basic reactive plans, and Parallel-rooted, Ordered, Slipstack Hierarchical (POSH) reactive plans. Modellers should use the simplest mechanism possible — this paper describes the contexts in which more complicated mechanisms may be required, as well as suggesting coding and commenting schemes for all four systems. This paper also addresses the issue of Individuated Agent-Based Modelling (IABM), where individual agents display different behavior. It gives examples of existing IABM systems and describes how these can be moved into more mainstream ABM simulators via two relatively simple mechanisms: either exploiting individual local variables or by specifying different priorities within the action selection mechanism. This allows individual agents to vary in their behavior while sharing the vast majority of their code.

[1]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Architectures and Idioms: Making Progress in Agent Design , 2000, ATAL.

[2]  Joanna J. Bryson,et al.  Hierarchy and Sequence vs. Full Parallelism in Action Selection , 2000 .

[3]  Master Gardener,et al.  Mathematical games: the fantastic combinations of john conway's new solitaire game "life , 1970 .

[4]  A. Newell Unified Theories of Cognition , 1990 .

[5]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  The Behavior-Oriented Design of Modular Agent Intelligence , 2002, Agent Technologies, Infrastructures, Tools, and Applications for E-Services.

[6]  Xiaoyuan Tu,et al.  Artificial Animals for Computer Animation: Biomechanics, Locomotion, Perception, and Behavior , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Agent Architecture as Object Oriented Design , 1997, ATAL.

[8]  Toby Tyrrell,et al.  Computational mechanisms for action selection , 1993 .

[9]  Joanna J. Bryson,et al.  Intelligence by design: principles of modularity and coordination for engineering complex adaptive agents , 2001 .

[10]  Andy Kwong,et al.  A Framework for Reactive Intelligence through Agile Component-Based Behaviors , 2003 .

[11]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Cross-paradigm analysis of autonomous agent architecture , 2000, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[12]  Richard Fikes,et al.  Learning and Executing Generalized Robot Plans , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Modularity and Design in Reactive Intelligence , 2001, IJCAI.

[15]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[16]  C. Hemelrijk Self-Organization and Natural Selection in the Evolution of Complex Despotic Societies , 2002, The Biological Bulletin.

[17]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Teleo-Reactive Programs for Agent Control , 1993, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Sexual Attraction and Inter-sexual Dominance among Virtual Agents , 2000, MABS.