ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Conflicts in teamwork: hybrids to the rescue
Full text PdfPdf (495 KB)
Source International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems table of contents
The Netherlands
Pages: 3 - 10  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-59593-093-0
Authors
M. Tambe  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
E. Bowring  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
H. Jung  Institute for Human-Machine Cognition, Pensacola, FL
G. Kaminka  Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
R. Maheswaran  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
J. Marecki  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
P. J. Modi  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
R. Nair  Honeywell Laboratories, Minneapolis, MN
S. Okamoto  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
J. P. Pearce  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
P. Paruchuri  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
D. Pynadath  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
P. Scerri  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
N. Schurr  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
P. Varakantham  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17,   Downloads (12 Months): 100,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1082473.1082474
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Today within the AAMAS community, we see at least four competing approaches to building multiagent systems: belief-desire-intention (BDI), distributed constraint optimization (DCOP), distributed POMDPs, and auctions or game-theoretic approaches. While there is exciting progress within each approach, there is a lack of cross-cutting research. This paper highlights hybrid approaches for multiagent teamwork. In particular, for the past decade, the TEAMCORE research group has focused on building agent teams in complex, dynamic domains. While our early work was inspired by BDI, we will present an overview of recent research that uses DCOPs and distributed POMDPs in building agent teams. While DCOP and distributed POMDP algorithms provide promising results, hybrid approaches help us address problems of scalability and expressiveness. For example, in the BDI-POMDP hybrid approach, BDI team plans are exploited to improve POMDP tractability, and POMDPs improve BDI team plan performance. We present some recent results from applying this approach in a Disaster Rescue simulation domain being developed with help from the Los Angeles Fire Department.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
E. Bowring, M. Tambe, and M. Yokoo. Distributed multi-criteria coordination in multi-agent systems. In Workshop on DALT, 2005.
 
4
 
5
G. Kaminka, D. V. Pynadath, and M. Tambe. Monitoring teams by overhearing: A multi-agent plan recognition approach. JAIR, 17, 2002.
 
6
G. Kaminka and M. Tambe. Robust multi-agent teams via socially-attentive monitoring. JAIR, 12:105--147, 2000.
 
7
 
8
H. Levesque, P. R. Cohen, and J. H. T. Nunes. On acting together. In AAAI, 1990.
 
9
R. Maheswaran, J. Pearce, P. Varakantham, E. Bowring, and M. Tambe. Valuation of possible states: A unifying quantitative framework for evaluating privacy in collaboration. In AAMAS, 2005.
 
10
R. Maheswaran, J. P. Pearce, and M. Tambe. Distributed algorithms for DCOP: A graphical-game-based approach. In PDCS, 2004.
11
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
R. Nair and M. Tambe. Hybrid bdi-pomdp framework for multiagent teaming. JAIR, 23:367--413, 2005.
 
17
R. Nair, M. Tambe, M. Yokoo, D. Pynadath, and S. Marsella. Taming decentralized pomdps: Towards efficient policy computation for multiagent settings. In IJCAI, 2003.
 
18
R. Nair, P. Varakantham, M. Yokoo, and M. Tambe. Networked distributed pomdps: A synergy of distributed constraint optimization and pomdps. In IJCAI, 2005.
 
19
 
20
J. Pearce, R. T. Maheswaran, and M. Tambe. Dcop games for multi-agent coordination. In Workshop on DCR, 2005.
21
 
22
23
24
 
25
P. Scerri, D. Pynadath, and M. Tambe. Towards adjustable autonomy for the real-world. JAIR, 17:171--228, 2002.
26
 
27
M. Tambe. Towards flexible teamwork. JAIR, 7:83--124, 1997.
 
28
 
29
 
30
M. Tambe, W. Johnson, R. Jones, F. Koss, J. Laird, P. Rosenbloom, and K. Schwamb. Intelligent agents for interactive simulation environments. AI Magazine, page 16(1), 1995.
 
31
32
 
33
J. Yen, J. Yin, T. R. Ioerger, M. S. Miller, D. Xu, and R. A. Volz. Cast: Collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. In IJCAI, 2001.
 
34


Collaborative Colleagues:
M. Tambe: colleagues
E. Bowring: colleagues
H. Jung: colleagues
G. Kaminka: colleagues
R. Maheswaran: colleagues
J. Marecki: colleagues
P. J. Modi: colleagues
R. Nair: colleagues
S. Okamoto: colleagues
J. P. Pearce: colleagues
P. Paruchuri: colleagues
D. Pynadath: colleagues
P. Scerri: colleagues
N. Schurr: colleagues
P. Varakantham: colleagues