MAAMAW 1992: Artificial Social Systems pp 207-226 | Cite as
Multi-agent planning as search for a consensus that maximizes social welfare
Abstract
When autonomous agents attempt to coordinate action, it is often necessary that they reach some kind of consensus. Reaching consensus has traditionally been dealt with in the Distributed Artificial Intelligence literature via negotiation. Another alternative is to have agents use a voting mechanism; each agent expresses its preferences, and a group choice mechanism is used to select the result. Some choice mechanisms are better than others, and ideally we would like one that cannot be manipulated by untruthful agents.
Coordination of actions by a group of agents corresponds to a group planning process. We here introduce a new multi-agent planning technique, that makes use of a dynamic, iterative search procedure. Through a process of group constraint aggregation, agents incrementally construct a plan that brings the group to a state maximizing social welfare. At each step, agents vote about the next joint action in the group plan (i.e., what the next transition state will be in the emerging plan). Using this technique agents need not fully reveal their preferences, and the set of alternative final states need not be generated in advance of a vote. With a minor variation, the entire procedure can be made resistant to untruthful agents.
Keywords
Social Welfare Goal State Choice Function Temporary Constraint Social UtilityPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.D. Chapman. Planning for conjunctive goals. Artificial Intelligence, 32(3):333–377, July 1987.Google Scholar
- 2.R. Clark, C. Grossner, and T. Radhakrishnan. CONSENSUS: a planning protocol for cooperating expert systems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 77–94, Glen Arbor, Michigan, February 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.D. Corkill. Hierarchical planning in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 168–175, Tokyo, August 1979.Google Scholar
- 4.E. Ephrati and J. S. Rosenschein. The Clarke Tax as a consensus mechanism among automated agents. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 173–178, Anaheim, California, July 1991.Google Scholar
- 5.E. Ephrati and J. S. Rosenschein. Reaching agreement through partial revelation of preferences. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 229–233, Vienna, Austria, August 1992.Google Scholar
- 6.E. Ephrati and J. S. Rosenschein. Distributed consensus mechanisms for self-interested heterogeneous agents. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, pages 71–79, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, May 1993.Google Scholar
- 7.D. E. Foulser, M. Li, and Q. Yang. Theory and algorithms for plan merging. Artificial Intelligence, 57:143–181, 1992.Google Scholar
- 8.M. Georgeff. A theory of action for multi-agent planning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 121–125, Austin, Texas, August 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.I. J. Good. Justice in voting by demand revelation. Public Choice, 29(2):65–70, 1977.Google Scholar
- 10.Peter Haddawy and Steven Hanks. Issues in decision-theoretic planning: Symbolic goals and numeric utilities. In Proceedings of the 1990 DARPA Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling, and Control, pages 48–58, November 1990.Google Scholar
- 11.K. Kanazawa and T. Dean. A model for projection and action. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 985–990, 1989.Google Scholar
- 12.R. E. Korf. Planning as search: A quantitative approach. Artificial Intelligence, 33:65–88, 1987.Google Scholar
- 13.A. L. Lansky. Localized search for controlling automated reasoning. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pages 115–125, San Diego, California, November 1990.Google Scholar
- 14.D. McDermott. Planning and acting. Cognitive Science, 2:71–109, 1978.Google Scholar
- 15.T. Moehlman and V. Lesser. Cooperative planning and decentralized negotiation in Multi-Fireboss Phoenix. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pages 144–159, San Diego, California, November 1990.Google Scholar
- 16.D. S. Nau, Q. Yang, and J. Hendler. Optimization of multiple-goal plans with limited interaction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pages 160–165, San Diego, California, November 1990.Google Scholar
- 17.R. P. Pope, S. E. Conry, and R. A. Mayer. Distributing the planning process in a dynamic environment. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 317–331, Glen Arbor, Michigan, February 1992.Google Scholar
- 18.J. S. Rosenschein. Synchronization of multi-agent plans. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 115–119, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1982.Google Scholar
- 19.W. Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16:8–37, 1961.Google Scholar
- 20.Frank von Martial. Coordination of plans in multiagent worlds by taking advantage of the favor relation. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Bandera, Texas, October 1990.Google Scholar