Advertisement

Analyzing the Theoretical Performance of Information Sharing

  • Paul Scerri
  • Prasanna Velagapudi
  • Katia Sycara
Chapter
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 40)

Summary

Individuals in large, heterogeneous teams will commonly produce sensor data that is likely useful to some other members of the team, but it is not precisely known to whom the information is useful. Some recent work has shown that randomly propagating the information performed surprisingly well, compared to infeasible optimal approaches. This chapter extends that work by looking at how the relative performance of random information passing algorithms scales with the size of the team. Additionally, the chapter looks at how random information passing performs when sensor data is noisy, so that individuals need multiple pieces of data to reach a conclusion, and the underlying situation is dynamic, so individuals need new information over time. Results show that random information passing is broadly effective, although relative performance is lower in some situations.

Keywords

Scale Free Network Network Type Hierarchical Network Utility Distribution Theoretical Performance 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bourgault, F., Durrant-Whyte, H.: Communication in general decentralized filter and the coordinated search strategy. In: Proc. of FUSION’04 (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, S., Ghosh, A., Prabhakar, B., Shah, D.: Randomized gossip algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 14(SI), 2508–2530 (2006). doi: 10.1109/TIT.2006.874516 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaimowicz, L., Kumar, V.: Aerial shepherds: Coordination among uavs and swarms of robots. In: 7th International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (2004) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drury, J.L., Richer, J., Rackliffe, N., Goodrich, M.A.: Comparing situation awareness for two unmanned aerial vehicle human interface approaches. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics (2006) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman, C.V., Zilberstein, S.: Optimizing information exchange in cooperative multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (2003) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heinzelman, W.R., Kulik, J., Balakrishnan, H.: Adaptive protocols for information dissemination in wireless sensor networks. In: Proc. of MobiCom’99 (1999) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuokka, D., Harada, L.: Matchmaking for information agents. In: Readings in Agents. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1995) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuokka, D., Harada, L.: Matchmaking for information agents. In: Readings in Agents. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1997) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leary, C.C., Schwehm, M., Eichner, M., Duerr, H.P.: Tuning degree distributions: Departing from scale-free networks. Phys. A, Stat. Mech. Appl. 382(2), 731–738 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nair, R., Tambe, M.: Communication for improving policy computation in distributed pomdps. In: Proc. of AAMAS’04 (2004) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosencrantz, M., Gordon, G., Thrun, S.: Decentralized sensor fusion with distributed particle filters. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in AI (UAI) (2003) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roth, M.: Execution-time communication decisions for coordination of multi-agent teams. PhD thesis, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA (2007) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schurr, N., Marecki, J., Tambe, M., Scerri, P., Levis, J., Kasinadhuni, N.: The future of disaster response: Humans working with multiagent teams using DEFACTO. In: AAAI Spring Symposium on Homeland Security (2005) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tambe, M.: Agent architectures for flexible, practical teamwork. In: National Conference on AI (AAAI97), pp. 22–28 (1997) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velagapudi, P., Prokopyev, O., Sycara, K., Scerri, P.: Maintaining shared belief in a large multiagent team. In: Proceedings of FUSION’07 (2007) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Velagapudi, P., Prokopyev, O., Sycara, K., Scerri, P.: An analysis of information sharing in large teams. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’09 (2009) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu, Y., Scerri, P., Yu, B., Okamoto, S., Lewis, M., Sycara, K.: An integrated token-based algorithm for scalable coordination. In: AAMAS’05 (2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xuan, P., Lesser, V., Zilberstein, S.: Communication decisions in multi-agent cooperation: Model and experiments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Scerri
    • 1
  • Prasanna Velagapudi
    • 1
  • Katia Sycara
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations