Distributed Problem Solving and Planning

  • Edmund H. Durfee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2086)


Distributed problem solving involves the collective effort of multiple problems solvers to combine their knowledge, information, and capabilities so as to develop solutions to problems that each could not have solved as well (if at all) alone. The challenge in distributed problem solving is thus in marshalling the distributed capabilities in the right ways so that the problem solving activities of each agent complement the activities of the others, so as to lead efficiently to effective solutions. Thus, while working together leads to distributed problem solving, there is also the distributed problem of how to work together that must be solved. We consider that problem to be a distributed planning problem, where each agent must formulate plans for what it will do that take into account (sufficiently well) the plans of other agents. In this paper, we characterize the variations of distributed problem solving and distributed planning, and summarize some of the basic techniques that have been developed to date.


Multiagent System Local Plan Plan Execution Iterative Exchange Unmanned Ground Vehicle 
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.
    AI Magazine, 20(4), Winter 1999. Special issue on Distributed Continual Planning.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craig Boutilier.“Multiagent Systems: Challenges and Opportunities for Decision-Theoretic Planning”. AI Magazine 20(4):35–43, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Will Briggs and Diane J. Cook. Flexible social laws. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), August 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Susan E. Conry, Kazuhiro Kuwabara, Victor R. Lesser, and Robert A. Meyer. Multistage negotiation for distributed constraint satisfaction. IEEE Trans. of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-21(6):1462–1477, Nov. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniel D. Corkill. A Framework for Organizational Self-Design in Distributed Problem Solving Networks. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, December 1982.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randall Davis and Reid Smith. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 20:63–109, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keith Decker and Victor Lesser. A one-shot dynamic coordination algorithm for distributed sensor networks. Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), pages 210–216, July 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keith Decker and Victor Lesser. Designing a family of coordination mechanisms. Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 73–80, June 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marie desJardins and Michael Wolverton. “Coordinating a Distributed Planning System”. AI Magazine 20(4):45–53, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmund H. Durfee, Victor R. Lesser, and Daniel D. Corkill. “Cooperation Through Communication in a Distributed Problem Solving Network”, Chapter 2 in M. Huhns (ed.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Pitman 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edmund H. Durfee. Coordination of Distributed Problem Solvers, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edmund H. Durfee and Thomas A. Montgomery. “Coordination as Distributed Search in a Hierarchical Behavior Space”. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Special Issue on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, SMC-21(6):1363–1378, November 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edmund H. Durfee, Patrick G. Kenny, and Karl C. Kluge. Integrated Premission Planning and Execution for Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 348–354, February 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edmund H. Durfee.“Distributed Problem Solving and Planning”. Chapter 3 in [52].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edmund H. Durfee. “Distributed Continual Planning for Unmanned Ground Vehicle Teams”. AI Magazine 20(4):55–61, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eithan Ephrati and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. Divide and conquer in multi-agent planning. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), pages 375–380, July 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eithan Ephrati, Martha E. Pollack, and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. A tractable heuristic that maximizes global utility through local plan combination. Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 94–101, June 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.D. Fennell and V.R. Lesser. Parallelism in AI problem solving: A case study of HEARSAY-II. IEEE Trans. on Computers C-26(2):98–111, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maier Fenster, Sarit Kraus, and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. Coordination without communication: experimental validation of focal point techniques. Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 102–108, June 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michael Fisher and Michael Wooldridge. Distributed problem-solving as concurrent theorem-proving. Proceedings of MAAMAW.97, Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Les Gasser.“Computational Organization Theory”. Chapter 7 of [52].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michael Georgeff. Communication and Interaction in multi-agent planning. Proceedings of the Third National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-83), pages 125–129, July 1983.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Claudia Goldman and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein. Emergent coordination through the use of cooperative state-changing rules. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), pages 408–413, July 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barbara J. Grosz, Luke Hunsberger, and Sarit Kraus.“Planning and Acting Together”. AI Magazine 20(4):23–34, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marcus J. Huber and Edmund H. Durfee. An initial assessment of plan-recognition-based coordination for multi-agent teams. Proceedings of the Second International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96), pages 126–133, December 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Toru Ishida, Les Gasser, and Makoto Yokoo. Organization self-design of distributed production systems, IEEE Trans on Knowl and Data Sys DKE4(2):123–134.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Froduald Kabanza. Synchronizing multiagent plans using temporal logic specifications. Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 217–224, June 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Subbarao Kambhampati, Mark Cutkosky, Marty Tenenbaum, and Soo Hong Lee. Combining specialized reasoners and general purpose planners: A case study. Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 199–205, July 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    David Kinney, Magus Ljungberg, Anand Rao, Elizabeth Sonenberg, Gil Tidhar, and Eric Werner, “Planned Team Activity”, Preproceedings of the Fourth European Workshop on Modeling Autonomous Agents in a MultiAgent World, July 1992.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Susan E. Lander and Victor R. Lesser. Understanding the role of negotiation in distributed search among heterogeneous agents. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 438–444, August 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amy L. Lansky. Localized Search for Controlling Automated Reasoning. Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling, and Control, pages 115–125, November 1990.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jaeho Lee. An Explicit Semantics for Coordinated Multiagent Plan Execution. PhD dissertation. University of Michigan, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Victor R. Lesser and Daniel D. Corkill. Functionally accurate, cooperative distributed systems. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-11(1):81–96, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jyi-Shane Liu and Katia P. Sycara. Multiagent coordination in tightly coupled task scheduling. Proceedings of the Second International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96), pages 181–188, December 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Douglas MacIntosh, Susan Conry, and Robert Meyer. Distributed automated reasoning: Issues in coordination, cooperation, and performance. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-21(6):1307–1316.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frank von Martial. Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents. Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Karen L. Myers. “CPEF: A Continuous Planning and Execution Framework”. AI Magazine 20(4):63–69, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R. Neches, R. Fikes, T. Finin, R. Gruber, R. Patil, T. Senator, and W. Swartout (1991). “Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing”. AI Magazine 12(3):36–56.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    H. Edward Pattison, Daniel D. Corkill, and Victor R. Lesser. Instantiating descriptions of organizational structures. In M. Huhns (ed.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence. London, Pittman.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martha E. Pollack and John F. Horty. “There#x2019;s More to Life Than Making Plans: Plan Management in Dynamic Multiagent Environments”. AI Magazine 20(4):71–83, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M.V. Nagendra Prasad, Keith Decker, Alan Garvey, and Victor Lesser. Exploring organizational designs with TAEMS: A case study of distributed data processing. Proceedings of the Second International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96), pages 283–290, December 1996.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and John S. Breese. Communication-free interactions among rational agents: A probabilistic approach. In Gasser and Huhns (eds.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence volume II, pages 99–118, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tuomas Sandholm. “Distributed Rational Decision Making”. Chapter 5 in [52].Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Amal El Fallah Seghrouchni and Serge Haddad. A recursive model for distributed planning. Proceedings of the Second International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96), pages 307–314, December 1996.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sandip Sen and Edmund H. Durfee. A contracting model for flexible distributed scheduling. Annals of Operations Research, vol. 65, pp. 195–222, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yoav Shaham and Moshe Tennenholtz. On the synthesis of useful social laws for artificial agent societies. Proceedings of the Tenth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92), pages 276–281–380, July 1992.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Young-pa So and Edmund H. Durfee. Designing tree-structured organizations for computational agents. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 2(3):219–246, Fall 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    John A. Stankovic, Krithi Ramamritham, and S.-C. Cheng. Evaluation of a flexible task scheduling algorithm for distributed hard real-time systems. IEEE Trans. on Computers C-34(12): 1130–1143, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Toshiharu Sugawara.Reusing past plans in distributed planning. Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 360–367, June 1995.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Katia Sycara, Steven Roth, Norman Sadeh, and Mark Fox. Distributed constrained heuristic search. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-21(6):1446–1461.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Milind Tambe and Hyuckchul Jung. “The Benefits of Arguing in a Team”. AI Magazine 20(4):85–92, Winter 1999.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gerhard Weiss, editor. Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1999.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Michael P. Wellman. A market-oriented programming environment and its application to distributed multicommodity flow problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:1–23, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Keith J. Werkman. Multiple agent cooperative design evaluation using negotiation. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Design, Pittsburgh PA, June 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund H. Durfee
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Laboratory EECS DepartmentUniversity of MichiganAcnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations