Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 779–821 | Cite as

Action dependencies in privacy-preserving multi-agent planning

  • Shlomi Maliah
  • Guy Shani
  • Roni Stern
Article

Abstract

Collaborative privacy-preserving planning (CPPP) is a multi-agent planning task in which agents need to achieve a common set of goals without revealing certain private information. In many CPPP algorithms, the individual agents reason about a projection of the multi-agent problem onto a single-agent classical planning problem. For example, an agent can plan as if it controls the public actions of other agents, ignoring any private preconditions and effects theses actions may have, and use the cost of this plan as a heuristic estimate of the cost of the full, multi-agent plan. Using such a projection, however, ignores some dependencies between agents’ public actions. In particular, it does not contain dependencies between public actions of other agents caused by their private facts. We propose a projection in which these private dependencies are maintained. The benefit of our dependency-preserving projection is demonstrated by using it to produce high-level plans in a new privacy-preserving planner, and as a heuristic for guiding forward search privacy-preserving algorithms. Both are able to solve more benchmark problems than any other state-of-the-art privacy-preserving planner. This more informed projection does not explicitly expose any private fact, action, or precondition. In addition, we show that even if an adversary agent knows that an agent has some private objects of a given type (e.g., trucks), it cannot infer the number of such private objects that the agent controls. This introduces a novel form of strong privacy, which we call object-cardinality privacy, that is motivated by real-world requirements.

Keywords

Automated planning Privacy Projection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by ISF Grant 933/13, ISF Grant 210/17, and by the Helmsley Charitable Trust through the Agricultural, Biological and Cognitive Robotics Center of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

References

  1. 1.
    Blum, A. L., & Furst, M. L. (1997). Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 90(1–2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borrajo, D., & Fernandez, S. (2015). MAPR and CMAP. In ICAPS proceedings of the competition of distributed and multi-agent planners (CoDMAP-15).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botea, A., Enzenberger, M., Müller, M., & Schaeffer, J. (2005). Macro-ff: improving AI planning with automatically learned macro-operators. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 581–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brafman, R. I. (2015). A privacy preserving algorithm for multi-agent planning and search. In The international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 1530–1536).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brafman, R. I., & Domshlak, C. (2018). From one to many: Planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems. In ICAPS (pp. 28–35).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brafman, R. I., & Domshlak, C. (2013). On the complexity of planning for agent teams and its implications for single agent planning. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 52–71.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brafman, R. I., & Shani, G. (2012). A multi-path compilation approach to contingent planning. In (AAAI).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chrpa, L. (2010). Generation of macro-operators via investigation of action dependencies in plans. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerevini, A. E., Saetti, A., & Vallati, M. (2015). Exploiting macro-actions and predicting plan length in planning as satisfiability. AI Communications, 28(2), 323–344.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haslum, P., Bonet, B., & Geffner, H., et al. (2005). New admissible heuristics for domain-independent planning. In AAAI (Vol. 5, pp. 9–13).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmert, M. (2006). The fast downward planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 26, 191–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helmert, M., & Domshlak, C. (2009). Landmarks, critical paths and abstractions: What’s the difference anyway? In ICAPS.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffmann, J. (2001). FF: The fast-forward planning system. AI Magazine, 22(3), 57.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakubuv, J., Tozicka, J., & Komenda, A. (2015). Multiagent planning by plan set intersection and plan verification. In Proceedings ICAART (Vol. 15).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keyder, E., & Geffner, H. (2009). Soft goals can be compiled away. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 36, 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korf, R. E. (1985). Macro-operators: A weak method for learning. Artificial Intelligence, 26(1), 35–77.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovacs, D. L. (2012). A multi-agent extension of PDDL3.1. In Workshop on the international planning competition (IPC) in the international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS) (pp. 19–27).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luis, N., & Borrajo, D. (2014). Plan merging by reuse for multi-agent planning. In ICAPS workshop on distributed and multi-agent planning (DMAP).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luis, N., & Borrajo, D. (2015). PMR: Plan merging by reuse. In ICAPS proceedings of the competition of distributed and multi-agent planners (CoDMAP-15).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maliah, S., Shani, G., & Brafman, R. I. (2016) Online macro generation for privacy preserving planning. In ICAPS (pp. 216–220).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maliah, S., Shani, G., & Stern, R. (2014). Privacy preserving landmark detection. In The European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 597–602).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maliah, S., Shani, G., & Stern, R. (2016). Collaborative privacy preserving multi-agent planning. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 1–38).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maliah, S., Shani, G., & Stern, R. (2016). Privacy preserving lama. In: ICAPS workshop on distributed and multi-agent planning (DMAP).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maliah, S., Shani, G., & Stern, R. (2016). Stronger privacy preserving projections for multi-agent planning. In The international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS) (pp. 221–229).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McAllester, D. A., & Rosenblitt, D. (1991). Systematic nonlinear planning. In AAAI (pp. 634–639).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McDermott, D., Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., & Wilkins, D. (1998). PDDL—the planning domain definition language. Tech. rep.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Minton, S. (1990). Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanation-based learning. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3), 363–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Newton, M. A. H., Levine, J., Fox, M., & Long, D. (2007). Learning macro-actions for arbitrary planners and domains. In ICAPS (pp. 256–263).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nissim, R., & Brafman, R. I. (2014). Distributed heuristic forward search for multi-agent planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 51, 293–332.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Palacios, H., & Geffner, H. (2009). Compiling uncertainty away in conformant planning problems with bounded width. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 35, 623–675.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Richter, S., & Westphal, M. (2010). The LAMA planner: Guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 39(1), 127–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rintanen, J. (2008). Regression for classical and nondeterministic planning. In European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 568–572).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Štolba, M., Fišer, D., & Komenda, A. (2015). Admissible landmark heuristic for multi-agent planning. In International conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Štolba, M., & Komenda, A. (2014) Relaxation heuristics for multiagent planning. In International conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Štolba, M., & Komenda, A. (2017). The madla planner: Multi-agent planning by combination of distributed and local heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence, 252, 175–210.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Štolba, M., Komenda, A., & Kovacs, D. L. (2015). Competition of distributed and multiagent planners (codmap). In The international planning competition (WIPC-15) (p. 24).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Torreño, A., Onaindia, E., Komenda, A., & Štolba, M. (2017). Cooperative multi-agent planning: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(6), 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tozicka, J., Jakubuv, J., & Komenda, A. (2014). Generating multi-agent plans by distributed intersection of finite state machines. In ECAI.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tozicka, J., Jakubuv, J., & Komenda, A. (2015) On internally dependent public actions in multiagent planning. In Distributed and multi-agent planning (DMAP-15) (p. 18).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tozicka, J., Jakubuv, J., & Komenda, A. (2018). Recursive reductions of action dependencies for coordination-based multiagent planning. Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence, XXVIII, 66–92.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tozicka, J., Štolba, M., & Komenda, A. (2017). The limits of strong privacy preserving multi-agent planning. In International conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ben Gurion University of the NegevBeershebaIsrael

Personalised recommendations