Coordination Through Plan Repair

  • Roman van der Krogt
  • Mathijs de Weerdt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3789)


In most practical situations, agents need to continuously improve or repair their plans. In a multiagent system agents also need to coordinate their plans. Consequently, we need methods such that agents in a multiagent system can construct, coordinate, and repair their plans. In this paper we focus on the problem of coordinating plans without exchanging explicit information on dependencies, or having to construct a global set of constraints. Our approach is to combine a propositional plan repair algorithm for each agent with a blackboard that auctions subgoals on behalf of the agents. Both the details of a first construction and some initial experimental results are discussed.


Multiagent System External Action Autonomous Agent Task Allocation Plan Execution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    DesJardins, M., Durfee, E., Ortiz, C., Wolverton, M.: A survey of research in distributed, continual planning. AI Magazine 20, 13–22 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollack, M., Horty, J.: There’s more to life than making plans: Plan management in dynamic, multi-agent environments. AI Magazine 20, 71–84 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys 21, 87–119 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkins, D., Myers, K.: A multiagent planning architecture. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pp. 154–162 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decker, K., Li, J.: Coordinating mutually exclusive resources using GPGP. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3, 113–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Martial, F.: Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents. LNCS, vol. 610. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shehory, O., Kraus, S.: Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artificial Intelligence 101, 165–200 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunsberger, L., Grosz, B.J.: A combinatorial auction for collaborative planning. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 151–158 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kambhampati, S.: Refinement planning as a unifying framework for plan synthesis. AI Magazine 18, 67–97 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Krogt, R., de Weerdt, M.: Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schillo, M., Kray, C., Fischer, K.: The eager bidder problem: A fundamental problem of DAI and selected solutions. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 599–606 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vickrey, W.: Computer speculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandholm, T., Lesser, V.: Leveled-commitment contracting: a backtracking instrument for multiagent systems. AI Magazine 23, 89–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerevini, A., Serina, I.: Fast plan adaptation through planning graphs: Local and systematic search techniques. In: Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pp. 112–121 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleinmann, K., Lazarus, R., Tomlinson, R.: An infrastructure for adaptive control of multi-agent systems. In: IEEE Int. Conf. on Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 230–236 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brenner, M.: Multiagent planning with partially ordered temporal plans. Technical Report 190, Universität Freiburg (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walsh, W.: Wellman: A market protocol for decentralized task allocation and scheduling with hierarchical dependencies. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 325–332 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collins, J., Tsvetovatyy, M., Gini, M., Mobasher, B.: MAGNET: A multi-agent contracting system for plan execution. In: Proc. of SIGMAN (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith, R.: The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-29, 1104–1113 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nair, R., Tambe, M., Marsella, S.: Role allocation and reallocation in multiagent teams: towards a practical analysis. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 552–559 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunsberger, L.: Distributing the control of a temporal network among multiple agents. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 899–906 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ’t Hoen, P.J., La Poutré, J.A.H.: A decommitment strategy in a competitive multi-agent transportation setting. In: Faratin, P., Parkes, D.C., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.-A., Walsh, W.E. (eds.) AMEC 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3048, pp. 56–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roman van der Krogt
    • 1
  • Mathijs de Weerdt
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations