Evolution of the GPGP/TÆMS Domain-Independent Coordination Framework

  • V. Lesser
  • K. Decker
  • T. Wagner
  • N. Carver
  • A. Garvey
  • B. Horling
  • D. Neiman
  • R. Podorozhny
  • M. Nagendra Prasad
  • A. Raja
  • R. Vincent
  • P. Xuan
  • X. Q. Zhang
Article

Abstract

The GPGP/TÆMS domain-independent coordination framework for small agent groups was first described in 1992 and then more fully detailed in an ICMAS'95 paper. In this paper, we discuss the evolution of this framework which has been motivated by its use in a number of applications, including: information gathering and management, intelligent home automation, distributed situation assessment, coordination of concurrent engineering activities, hospital scheduling, travel planning, repair service coordination and supply chain management. First, we review the basic architecture of GPGP and then present extensions to the TÆMS domain-independent representation of agent activities. We next describe extensions to GPGP that permit the representation of situation-specific coordination strategies and social laws as well as making possible the use of GPGP in large agent organizations. Additionally, we discuss a more encompassing view of commitments that takes into account uncertainty in commitments. We then present new coordination mechanisms for use in resource sharing and contracting, and more complex coordination mechanisms that use a cooperative search among agents to find appropriate commitments. We conclude with a summary of the major ideas underpinning GPGP, an analysis of the applicability of the GPGP framework including performance issues, and a discussion of future research directions.

multi-agent coordination teamwork 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abdallah, N. Darwish, O. Hegazy, and I. Talkhan, “Monitoring and synchronization for teamwork” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Barbuceanu and M. S. Fox, “COOL: A language for describing coordination in multi-agent systems” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: Menlo Park, CA, 1995, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. S. Bernstein, S. Zilberstein, and N. Immerman, “The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, CA, 2000, pp. 32–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. H. Bordini, A. L. C. Bazzan, R. de O. Jannone, D. M. Basso, R. M. Vicari, and V. R. Lesser, “AgentSpeak(XL): Efficient intention selection in BDI agents via decision-theoretic task scheduling” in Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Part 3: ACM Press, July 2002, pp. 1294–1302.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Boutilier, “Sequential optimality and coordination in multiagent systems” in Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI99), 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. D. Corkill and V. R. Lesser, “The use of meta-level control for coordination in a distributed problem-solving network” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1983, pp. 748–756.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Corkill, “A framework for organizational self-design in distributed problem-solving networks” Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Decker and V. Lesser, “Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm” Int. J. Intell. Cooperative Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 319–346, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Decker and V. Lesser, “An approach to analyzing the need for meta-level communication” in Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Decker and V. Lesser, “Quantitative modeling of complex environments” Int. J. Intell. Syst Accounting, Finance, Management, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 215–234, Special Issue on Mathematical and Computational Models of Organizations: Models and Characteristics of Agent Behavior, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Decker and V. Lesser, “Designing a family of coordination algorithms” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: San Francisco, 1995, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Decker and J. Li, “Coordinating mutually exclusive resources using GPGP” Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. Special Issue: Best of ICMAS'98-Part II, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 133–158, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Decker, M. Williamson, and K. Sycara, “Intelligent adaptive information agents” J. Intell. Inf. Syst., vol. 9, pp. 239–260, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. S. Decker, “Environment centered analysis and design of coordination mechanisms” Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. S. Decker, “Task environment centered simulation” in M. Prietula, K. Carley, and L. Gasser (eds.), Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups, AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Durfee and V. R. Lesser, “Predictability versus responsiveness: Coordinating problem solvers in dynamic domains” in Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp. 66–71.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. H. Durfee and V. R. Lesser, “Negotiating task decomposition and allocation using partial global planning” in M. Huhns and L. Gasser (eds.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, Pitman Publishing Ltd.: London, 1989, pp. 229–244.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. H. Durfee and V. R. Lesser, “Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cyber., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1167–1183, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Fujita and V. R. Lesser, “Centralized task distribution in the presence of uncertainty and time deadlines” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: CA, 1996, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Garvey and V. R. Lesser, “Design-to-time scheduling and anytime algorithms” SIGART Bull., vol. 7, no. 3, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Garvey, K. S. Decker and V. R. Lesser, “A negotiation-based interface between a real-time scheduler and a decision-maker” Proceedings of Workshop on Models of Conflict Management in Cooperative Problem Solving, AAAI Press: Seattle, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Graham, “Real-time scheduling in distributed multi-agent systems” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware, January 2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Graham and K. S. Decker, “Towards a distributed, environment-centered agent framework” in N. Jennings and Y. Lesperance (eds.), Intelligent Agents VI: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, LNAI #1757, Springer, 2000, pp. 290–304.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Graham, K. S. Decker, and M. Mersic, “DECAF: A flexible multi-agent system architecture” Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Graham, D. McHugh, M. Mersic, F. McGeary, M. Windley, D. Cleaver, and K. S. Decker, “Tools for developing and monitoring agents in distributed multi-agent systems” in T. Wagner and O. Rana (eds.), Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science #1887, Springer, pp. 12–27, 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. J. Grosz and S. Kraus, “Collaborative plans for complex group action” Artif. Intell., vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 269–357, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Horling, et al. “The TÆMS white paper” Technical Notes of Multi-Agent Systems Lab, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Horling, B. Benyo, and V. R. Lesser, “Using self-diagnosis to adapt organizational structures” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, 2001, pp. 529–536.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Horling, V. Lesser, R. Vincent, and T. Wagner, “The soft real-time agent control architecture” in Proceedings of the AAAI/KDD/UAI-2002 Joint Workshop on Real-Time Decision Support and Diagnosis Systems. July 2002. Also available as UMass Computer Science Tech Report 02-14.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Horling, R. Vincent, R. Mailler, J. Shen, R. Becker, K. Rawlins, and V. R. Lesser, “Distributed sensor network for real-time tracking” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, 2001, pp. 417–424.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Horling, R. Vincent, R. Mailler, J. Shen, R. Becker, K. Rawlins, and V. R. Lesser, “Using autonomy, organizational design and negotiation in a distributed sensor network” Distributed Sensor Networks: A Multiagent Perspective, pp. 139–183, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. F. Ingrand, M. P. Georgeff, and A. S. Rao, “An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control” IEEE Expert, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 34–44, 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. Jennings, “Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems” Knowl. Eng. Rev. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 223–250, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    N. Jennings, “Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions” Artif. Intell., vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 195–240, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D. Jensen, M. Atighetchi, R. Vincent, and V. R. Lesser, “Learning quantitative knowledge for multiagent coordination” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Kuwabara, T. Ishida, and N. Osato, “AgentTalk: Coordination protocol description for multiagent systems” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: Menlo Park, CA, p. 455, 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B. Lâasri, H. Lâasri, S. Lander, and V. R. Lesser, “A generic model for intelligent negotiating agents” Int. J. Intell. Cooperative Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 291–317, 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Lander and V. R. Lesser, “Sharing meta-information to guide cooperative search among heterogeneous reusable agents” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol.9, no. 2, pp. 193–208, 1997.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. R. Lesser, “A retrospective view of FA/C distributed problem solving” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cyber., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1347–1362, 1983.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    V. R. Lesser, “Reflections on the nature of multi-agent coordination and its implications for an agent architecture” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Syst., vol. 1, pp. 89–111, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    V. R. Lesser and D. D. Corkill, “The distributed vehicle monitoring testbed: A tool for investigating distributed problem-solving networks” AI Mag., vol 4, no. 3, pp. 15–33, 1983.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    V. R. Lesser, M. Atighetchi, B. Benyo, B. Horling, A. Raja, R. Vincent, T.Wagner, P. Xuan, and S. X. Q. Zhang, “The intelligent home testbed” in Proceedings of the Autonomy Control Software Workshop (Autonomous Agent Workshop), 1999.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    V. R. Lesser, M. Atighetchi, B. Benyo, B. Horling, A. Raja, R. Vincent, T. Wagner, P. Xuan, and S. X. Q. Zhang, “A multi-agent system for intelligent environment control.“ in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents, ACM Press: New York, NY, 1999, pp. 291–298.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    V. R. Lesser, K. S. Decker, N. Carver, A. Garvey, D. Neiman, M. Nagendra Prasad, and T. Wagner, “Evolution of the GPGP domain-independent coordination framework” University of Massachusetts/Amherst CMPSCI Technical Report 98-05, 1998.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    V. R. Lesser, B. Horling, F. Klassner, A. Raja, T. Wagner, and S. X. Q. Zhang, “BIG: An agent for resource-bounded information gathering and decision making” Artif. Intell., vol. 118, no. 1-2, pp. 197–244, 2000. (Elsevier Science), Special Issue on Internet Information Agents.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    H. J. Levesque, P. R. Cohen, and H. T. Nunes, “On acting together” in Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1990, pp. 94–99.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Mailler, R. Vincent, V. R. Lesser, and B. Horling, “Cooperative negotiation for soft real-time distributed resource allocation” in Proceedings of Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2003).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    M. V. Nagendra Prasad and V. R. Lesser, “Learning situation specific coordination in cooperative multi-agent systems” Autonomous Agents Multi-Agent Syst., vol. 2, pp. 173–207, 1999.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M. V. Nagendra Prasad, K. S. Decker, A. Garvey, and V. R. Lesser, “Exploring organizational designs with TÆMS: A case study of distributed data processing” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 1997.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    T. Oates, M. V. Nagendra Prasad, and V. R. Lesser, “Cooperative information gathering: A distributed problem-solving approach” IEE Proc. Software Eng. Special Issue on Agent-based Systems, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 72–78, 1997.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    D. Pynadath and M. Tambe, “An automated teamwork infrastructure for heterogeneous software agents and humans” J. Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst (JAAMAS), 2002.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Y. Qian, E. Albert, T. Wagner, J. Phelps, and G. Beane, “A modified architecture for constructing real-time information-gathering agents” in Proceedings of Agent-Oriented Information Gathering Systems.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    A. Raja, “Meta-level control in multi-agent systems” Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts/ Amherst, 2003.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    A. Raja and V. Lesser, “Automated meta-level control reasoning in complex agents” in Proceedings of Workshop on 'Agents and Automated Reasoning' in the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    A. Raja, V. R. Lesser, and T. Wagner, “Toward robust agent control in open environments” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Barcelona, 2000, pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    A. Raja, T. Wagner, and V. R. Lesser, “Reasoning about uncertainty in agent control” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems, Analysis, and Synthesis, Computer Science and Engineering, Part 1, vol. VII, 2001, pp. 156–161.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, “BDI agents: From theory to practice” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press: San Francisco, 1995, pp. 312–319.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin, Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Z. Rubinstein, “The Hurrier I Go, The Behinder I Get” in Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing, IJCAI & AAAI, 2001, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    R. G. Smith and R. Davis, “Frameworks for cooperation in distributed problem solving” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cyber., vol. SMC-11, pp. 61–70, 1981.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    T. Sugawara and V. R. Lesser, “Learning to improve coordinated actions in cooperative distributed problem-solving environments” Mach. Learn., vol. 33, no. 2-3, 1998 (Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    M. Tambe, “Agent architectures for flexible, practical teamwork” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    M. Tambe, “Towards flexible teamwork” J. Artif. Intell. Res., vol. 7, pp. 83–124, 1997.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    R. Vincent, B. Horling, V. R. Lesser, and T. Wagner, “Implementing soft real-time agent control” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001, pp. 355–362.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    T. Wagner and V. R. Lesser, “Design-to-criteria scheduling for intermittent processing” University of Massachusetts/Amherst Computer Science Technical Report 1996-81, 1996.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    T. Wagner and V. R. Lesser, “Relating quantified motivations for organizationally situated agents” in N. R. Jennings and Y. Lesperance (eds.), Intelligent Agents VI: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1757, 2000, pp. 334–349.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    T. Wagner and V. R. Lesser, “Toward soft real-time agent control” in T. Wagner and O. Rana, (eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Infrastructure for Large-scale Multi-Agent Systems, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1887, 2001.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    T. Wagner and V. R. Lesser, “Evolving real-time local agent control for large-scale multi-agent systems” in J.-J. Meyer and M. Tambe (eds.), Intelligent Agents VIII: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Springer-Verlag, LNAI vol. 2333, pp. 51–68, 2002.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    T. Wagner, B. Benyo, V. Lesser, A. Raja, P. Xuan, and X. Q. Zhang, “GPGP2: Supporting situation specific coordination protocols” UMASS Computer Science Technical Report #98-042, 1998.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    T. Wagner, B. Benyo, V. R. Lesser, and P. Xuan, “Investigating interactions between agent conversations and agent control components” in F. Dignum and M. Greaves (eds.), Issues in Agent Communication, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1916, 2000, pp. 314–331.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    T. Wagner, A. Garvey, and V. R. Lesser, “Complex goal criteria and its application in design-tocriteria scheduling” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    T. Wagner, A. Garvey, and V. R. Lesser, “Leveraging uncertainty in design-to-criteria scheduling” UMass Computer Science Technical Report 1997-11, 1997.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    T. Wagner, A. Garvey, and V. R. Lesser, “Criteria directed task scheduling” Int. J. Approximate Process., Special Issue on Scheduling, vol. 19, pp. 91–118, 1998.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    T. Wagner, V. Guralnik, and J. Phelps, “A key-based coordination algorithm for dynamic readiness and repair service coordination” in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'03), ACM Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    T. Wagner, V. Guralnik, and J. Phelps, “TAEMS agents: Enabling dynamic distributed supply chain management” J. Electron. Commerce Res. Appl., 2003 (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    M. Wellman and J. Doyle, “Modular utility representation for decision-theoretic planning” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, 1992, pp. 236–242.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    A. Wise, A. G. Cass, B. Staudt-Lerner, E. K. McCall, L. J. Osterweil, and S. M. Sutton, Jr., “Using little-JIL to coordinate agents in software engineering” in Proceedings of the Automated Software Engineering Conference (ASE 2000), 2000, pp. 155–163.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    P. Xuan, “Uncertainty handling and decision making in multi-agent cooperation.“ Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 2002.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    P. Xuan and V. R. Lesser, “Incorporating uncertainty in agent commitments” in N. R. Jennings and Y. Lesperance (eds.), Intelligent Agents VI: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1757, 2000, pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    P. Xuan and V. R. Lesser, “Multi-agent policies: From centralized ones to decentralized ones” in Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Part 3: ACM Press, July 2002, pp. 1098–1105.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    P. Xuan, V. R. Lesser, and S. Zilberstein, “Communication decisions in multi-agent cooperation: Model and experiments” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001, pp. 616–623.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    X. Zhang and V. Lesser, “Multi-linked negotiation in multi-agent system” in Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, 15-19 July, 2002, pp. 1207–1214.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    X. Q. Zhang, V. R. Lesser, and T. Wagner, “A two-level negotiation framework for complex negotiations” in Proceedings of IEEE/WIC International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2003), Halifax, Canada, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    X. Q. Zhang, R. Podorozhny and V. R. Lesser, “Cooperative, multistep negotiation over a multidimensional utility function” in Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (ASC 2000), IASTED/ACTA Press, 2000, pp. 136–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Lesser
    • 1
  • K. Decker
    • 2
  • T. Wagner
    • 3
  • N. Carver
    • 4
  • A. Garvey
    • 5
  • B. Horling
    • 1
  • D. Neiman
    • 6
  • R. Podorozhny
    • 1
  • M. Nagendra Prasad
    • 7
  • A. Raja
    • 8
  • R. Vincent
    • 9
  • P. Xuan
    • 10
  • X. Q. Zhang
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Honeywell Research LabMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceTruman State UniversityKirksvilleUSA
  6. 6.River Logic, Inc.BeverlyUSA
  7. 7.PeopleSoftPleasantonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaCharlotteUSA
  9. 9.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  10. 10.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  11. 11.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsN. DartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations