Advertisement

Team Formation for Reformation in Multiagent Domains Like RoboCupRescue

  • Ranjit Nair
  • Milind Tambe
  • Stacy Marsella
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2752)

Abstract

Team formation, i.e., allocating agents to roles within a team or subteams of a team, and the reorganization of a team upon team member failure or arrival of new tasks are critical aspects of teamwork. They are very important issues in RoboCupRescue where many tasks need to be done jointly. While empirical comparisons (e.g., in a competition setting as in RoboCup) are useful, we need a quantitative analysis beyond the competition — to understand the strengths and limitations of different approaches, and their tradeoffs as we scale up the domain or change domain properties. To this end, we need to provide complexity-optimality tradeoffs, which have been lacking not only in RoboCup but in the multiagent field in general.

To alleviate these difficulties, this paper presents R-COM-MTDP, a formal model based on decentralized communicating POMDPs, where agents explicitly take on and change roles to (re)form teams. R-COM-MTDP significantly extends an earlier COM-MTDP model, by introducing roles and local states to better model domains like RoboCupRescue where agents can take on different roles and each agent has a local state consisting of the objects in its vicinity. R-COM-MTDP tells us where the problem is highly intractable (NEXP-complete) and where it can be tractable (P-complete), and thus understand where algorithms may need to tradeoff optimality and where they could strive for near optimal behaviors. R-COM-MTDP model could enable comparison of various team formation and reformation strategies — including the strategies used by our own teams that came in the top three in 2001 — in the RoboCup Rescue domain and beyond.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernstein, D.S., Zilberstein, S., Immerman, N.: The Complexity of Decentralized Control of MDPs. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M.: Adaptive Task and Resource Allocation in Multiagent Systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horling, B., Benyo, B., Lesser, V.: Using Self-Diagnosis to Adapt Organizational Structures. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunsberger, L., Grosz, B.: A Combinatorial Auction for Collaborative Planning. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multiagent Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kitano, H., Tadokoro, S., Noda, I., Matsubara, H., Takahashi, T., Shinjoh, A., Shimada, S.: RoboCupRescue: Search and Rescue for Large Scale Disasters as a Domain for Multi-agent Research. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marsella, S., Adibi, J., Alonaizon, Y., Kaminka, G., Muslea, I., Tambe, M.: On being a teammate: Experiences acquired in the design of robocup teams. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Modi, P.J., Jung, H., Tambe, M., Shen, W.-M., Kulkarni, S.: A Dynamic Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Approach to Resource Allocation. In: Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nair, R., Ito, T., Tambe, M., Marsella, S.: Task Allocation in the Rescue Simulation Domain. In: Coradeschi, S., Tadokoro, S., Birk, A. (eds.) RoboCup-2001: The Fifth Robot World Cup Games and Conferences, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pynadath, D., Tambe, M.: Multiagent Teamwork: Analyzing the Optimality Complexity of Key Theories and Models. In: Proceedings of First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tadokoro, S., Kitano, H., Tomoichi, T., Noda, I., Matsubara, H., Shinjoh, A., Koto, T., Takeuchi, I., Takahashi, H., Matsuno, F., Hatayama, M., Nobe, J., Shimada, S.: The RoboCup-Rescue: An International Cooperative Research Project of Robotics and AI for the Disaster Mitigation Problem. In: Proceedings of SPIE 14th Annual International Symposium on Aerospace/Defense Sensing, Simulation, and Controls (AeroSense), Conference on Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology II (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tambe, M.: Towards Flexible Teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tidhar, G., Rao, A.S., Sonenberg, E.: Guided Team Selection. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (1996) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N., Kinny, D.: A Methodology for Agent Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xuan, P., Lesser, V., Zilberstein, S.: Communication Decisions in Multiagent Cooperation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranjit Nair
    • 1
  • Milind Tambe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stacy Marsella
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern California’s Information Sciences InstituteMarina del ReyUSA

Personalised recommendations