Real-Time Systems

, Volume 2, Issue 1–2, pp 81–97 | Cite as

Addressing real-time constraints in the design of autonomous agents

  • Adele E. Howe
  • David M. Hart
  • Paul R. Cohen
Article

Abstract

The Phoenix project is an experiment in the design of autonomous agents for a complex environment. The project consists of a simulator of the environment, a basic agent architecture, and specific implementation of agents based on real-time techniques; the first two parts have been constructed, the third is on-going. The facets of Phoenix that facilitate real-time research are: a simulator parameterized for varying environmental conditions and instrumented to record behaviors, an agent architecture designed to support adaptable planning and scheduling, and methods for reasoning about real-time constraints.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooks, R.A. 1986. A robust layered control system for a mobile robot.IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, RA 2 (1), (March).Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, P.R., M. Greenberg, D. Hart, and A. Howe. 1989. Trial by fire: Understanding the design requirements for agents in complex environments.AI Magazine, 10 (3):32–48, (Fall). Also Technical Report, COINS Dept., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Dean, T. and M. Boddy. 1988. An analysis of time-dependent planning. InProceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  4. Firby, R.J. 1987. An investigation into reactive planning in complex domains. InProceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 202–206, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  5. Georgeff, M. P. and A. L. Lansky. 1987. Reactive reasoning and planning. InProceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 677–682, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  6. Kaelbling, L.P. 1987. An architecture for intelligent reactive systems. In M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, (eds.)Reasoning About Actions and Plans, Proceedings of the 1986 Workshop at Timberline, Oregon, pp. 411–424.Google Scholar
  7. Lesser, V.R., J. Pavlin, and E. Durfee. 1988. Approximate processing in real-time problem solving.AI Magazine, 9 (1): 49–61, (Spring).Google Scholar
  8. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Boise, Idaho. 1985.NWCG Fireline Handbook, November.Google Scholar
  9. Ow, P.S., S.F. Smith, and A. Thiriez. 1988. Reactive plan revision. InProceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 77–82, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  10. Sridharan, N.S. and R.T. Dodhiawala. 1988. Real-time problem solving: Preliminary thoughts. InProceedings of the Workshop on Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Problems, Detroit, Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. Stankovic, J.A. 1988. Misconceptions about real-time computing: A serious problem for next-generation systems.Computer, 21 (10): 10–19, (Oct.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adele E. Howe
    • 1
  • David M. Hart
    • 1
  • Paul R. Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Experimental Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations