The Role of Agent-Modeling in Agent Robustness

A key challenge in using intelligent systems in complex, dynamic, multi-agent environments is the attainment of robustness in face of uncertainty. In such environments the combinatorial nature of state-space complexity inhibits any designer’s ability to anticipate all possible states that the agent might find itself in. Therefore, agents will fail in such environments, as the designer ca not supply them with full information about the correct response to take at any state. To overcome these failures, agents must display post-failure robustness, enabling them to autonomously detect, diagnose and recover from failures as they happen. Our hypothesis is that through agent-modeling (the ability of an agent to model the intentions, knowledge, and actions of other agents in the environment) an agent may significantly increase its robustness in a multi-agent environment, by allowing it to use others in the environment to evaluate and improve its own performance. We examine this hypothesis in light of two real-world applications in which we improve robustness: domain-independent teamwork, and target-recognition and identification systems. We discuss the relation between the ability of an agent-modeling algorithm to represent uncertainty and the applications, and highlight key lessons learned for real-world applications.

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

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

[3]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  An Initial Assessment of Plan-Recognition-Based Coordination for Multi-Agent Teams , 1996 .

[4]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Intelligent Agents for Interactive Simulation Environments , 1995, AI Mag..

[5]  W. Lewis Johnson,et al.  Steve: an animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments , 1997, SGAR.

[6]  Milind Tambe,et al.  What Is Wrong With Us? Improving Robustness Through Social Diagnosis , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[7]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Tracking Dynamic Team Activity , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

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

[9]  Timothy D. Ross,et al.  Evaluation of SAR ATR algorithm performance sensitivity to MSTAR extended operating conditions , 1998, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[10]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  A Model-Based Approach to Reactive Self-Configuring Systems , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[11]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment , 1984, JACM.

[12]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  RoboCup: The Robot World Cup Initiative , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Controlling Cooperative Problem Solving in Industrial Multi-Agent Systems Using Joint Intentions , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[14]  William Charles Hoppe Cognitive modeling and the evolution of the student model in intelligent tutoring systems , 1992 .

[15]  Milind Tambe,et al.  RESC: An Approach for Real-time, Dynamic Agent Tracking , 1995, IJCAI.

[16]  L. Festinger A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

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

[18]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Expecting the Unexpected: Detecting and Reacting to Unplanned-for World States , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

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