Incorporating Uncertainty in Agent Commitments

  • Ping Xuan
  • Victor R. Lesser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1757)

Abstract

Commitments play a central role in multi-agent coordination. However, they are inherently uncertain and it is important to take these uncertainties into account during planning and scheduling. This paper addresses the problem of handling the uncertainty in commitments. We propose a new model of commitment that incorporates the uncertainty, the use of contingency analysis to reduce the uncertainty, and a negotiation framework for handling commitments with uncertainty.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boella, G., Damiano, R., Lesmo, L.: Cooperating to the group’s utility. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brainov, S.: The role and the impact of preferences on multiagent interaction. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Prietula, M. (ed.) AI and theories of groups & organizations: Conceptual and Empirical Research. AAAI Workshop Working Notes. (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Deliberate normative agents: Principles and architecture. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(3), 213–261 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, K.S., Lesser, V.R.: Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 1(2), 319–346 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, K.S., Lesser, V.R.: Quantitative modeling of complex computational task environments. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 214–217 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.R., Corkill, D.D.: Trends in cooperative distributed problem solving. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Eng. 1(1), 63–83 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents. International Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24(3-4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansen, E.A., Zilberstein, S.: Monitoring the Progress of Anytime Problem-Solving. In: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1229–1234 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hogg, L., Jennings, N.: Variable sociability in agent-based decision making. In: Jennings, N.R., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) Intelligent Agents VI — Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalWorkshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 1999). LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jennings, N.R.: Commitments and Conventions: The Foundation of Coordination in Multiagent Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3), 223–250 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jennings, N.R.: Coordination Techniques for Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Jennings, N.R. (eds.) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. John Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moehlman, T.A., Lesser, V.R., Buteau, B.L.: Decentralized Negotiation: An Approach to the Distributed Planning Problem. In: Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 2, pp. 161–191 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onder, N., Pollack, M.: Contingency Selection in Plan Generation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Planning, ECP 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandholm, T.: An Implementation of the Contract Net Protocol Based on Marginal Cost Calculations. In: Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1993), Washington D.C, pp. 256–262 (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandholm, T., Lesser, V.: Advantages of a leveled commitment contracting protocol. In: Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1996 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sycara, K.: Using option pricing to value commitment flexibility in multi-agent systems. Technical Report CMU-CS-TR-97-169, Carnegie Mellon University (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner, T., Benyo, B., Lesser, V., Xuan, P.: Investigating Interactions Between Agent Conversations and Agent Control Components. In: Agents 1999 Workshop on Conversation Policies (1999) Also available as UMASS CS TR 99-07Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner, T., Lesser, V.: Relating quantified motivations for organizationally situated agents. In: Jennings, N.R., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) Intelligent Agents VI — Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalWorkshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 1999). LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner, T., Raja, A., Lesser, V.: Modeling uncertainty and its implications to design-to-criteria scheduling. Technical Report TR-98-51, UMASS Department of Computer Science (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner, T.A., Garvey, A.J., Lesser, V.R.: Criteria Directed Task Scheduling. Journal for Approximate Reasoning–Special Scheduling Issue 19, 91–118 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping Xuan
    • 1
  • Victor R. Lesser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations