Integrating Collaboration and Activity-Oriented Planning for Coalition Operations Support

  • Clauirton Siebra
  • Austin Tate
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4020)


The use of planning assistant agents is an appropriate option to provide support for members of a coalition. Planning agents can extend the human abilities and be customised to attend different kinds of activities. However, the implementation of a planning framework must also consider other important requirements for coalitions, such as the performance of collaborative activities and human-agent interaction (HAI). This paper discusses the integration of an activity-oriented planning with collaborative concepts using a constraint-based ontology for that. While the use of collaborative concepts provides a better performance to systems as a whole, a unified representation of planning and collaboration enables an easy customisation of activity handlers and the basis for a future incorporation of HAI mechanisms.


Planning Agent Coalition Member Defense Advance Research Project Agency Defense Advance Research Project Agency Assistant Agent 
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.
    Tate, A.: Mixed-Initiative Interaction in O-Plan. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed-Initiative Interaction, Stanford, California, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fergunson, G., Allen, J., Miller, B.: TRAINS-95: Towards a Mixed-Initiative Planning Assistant. In: Proceedings of the Third Conference in AI Planning Systems, pp. 70–77. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levesque, J., Cohen, P., Nunes, J.: On Acting Together. In: Proceedings of the Eighth National conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, California, USA, pp. 94–99 (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tambem, M.: Towards Flexible Teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siebra, C., Ramalho, G.: An Architecture to Support Synthetic Actors in Virtual Environments. In: Second Brazilian Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grosz, B.: Collaborative Systems. AI Magazine 17(2), 67–85 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nareyek, A., Fourer, R., Freuder, E., Giunchiglia, E., Goldman, R., Kautz, H., Rintanen, J., Tate, A.: Constraints and AI Planning. In: Notes from the AAAI Workshop on Constraints and AI Planning, Austin, Texas, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stefik, M.: Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1). Artificial Intelligence 16(2), 111–140 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freuder, E.: Synthesizing Constraint Expressions. Communications ACM 21(11), 958–966 (1978)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tate, A.: <I-N-C-A>: an Ontology for Mixed-Initiative Synthesis Tasks. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Mixed-Initiative Intelligent Systems, Acapulco, Mexico (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Teamwork. Special Issue on Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence 25, 487–512 (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosz, B., Hunsberger, L., Kraus, S.: Planning and Acting Together. AI Magazine 20(4), 23–34 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tambe, M.: Towards Flexible Teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clauirton Siebra
    • 1
  • Austin Tate
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications, School of InformaticsThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations