Advertisement

SPAGE: An Action Generation Engine to Support Spatial Patterns of Interaction in Multi-agent Simulations

  • Kavin Preethi Narasimhan
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 151)

Abstract

Space is a significant resource in human interaction. In this paper, we analyse the prospects of utilising space as an important resource in agent interaction. To do this, we created a software engine called SPAGE that generates communicative action signals for an agent based on the current state of the agent and its environment. These action signals are then evaluated against a set of conditions that are logically deduced from the literature on human face-to-face interaction. Depending upon the success or failure outcomes of the evaluation, the agent then receives a reward or a punitive signal. In either case, the states of both the agent and its environment are updated. The ultimate rationale is to maximise the number of rewards for an agent. SPAGE is incorporated into a simulation platform called the K-space in order to verify the believability of the action signals, and also to analyse the effects a sequence of actions can have in giving rise to spatial-orientational patterns of agent interaction. SPAGE is modular in nature which makes future modifications or extensions easy.

Keywords

Action Signal Speech Signal Multiagent System Simulation Platform Agent Interaction 
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.
    Breazeal, C.: Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59, 119–155 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassell, J., Vilhjálmsson, H.: Fully embodied conversational avatars: Making communicative behaviors autonomous. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2, 4564 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Modelling social action for ai agents. Artificial Intelligence 103(1-2), 157–182 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castellano, G., Leite, I., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.: Its all in the game: Towards an affect sensitive and context aware game companion. In: 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops, ACII 2009, p. 18 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1480), 679–704 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goffman, E.: Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. Free Press, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jan, D., Traum, D.R.: Dynamic movement and positioning of embodied agents in multiparty conversations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2007, pp. 14–114. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, R., Campos, J.: Towards a social level characterisation of socially responsible agents. Towards a Social Level Characterisation of Socially Responsible Agents 144(1), 11–25 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalenka, S., Jennings, N.R.: Socially responsible decision making by autonomous agents. In: Korta, K., Sosa, E., Arrazola, X. (eds.) Cognition, Agency and Rationality, pp. 135–149. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kendon, A.: Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behaviour in Focused Encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendon, A.: Spacing and Orientation in Co-present Interaction. In: Esposito, A., Campbell, N., Vogel, C., Hussain, A., Nijholt, A. (eds.) Second COST 2102. LNCS, vol. 5967, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D., Walters, M., Dautenhahn, K.: Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2007, pp. 564–569 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyman, S.M., Scott, M.B.: Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social Problems 15(2), 236–249 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mukai, T., Seki, S., Nakazawa, M., Watanuki, K., Miyoshi, H.: Multimodal agent interface based on dynamical dialogue model: MAICO: multimodal agent interface for communication. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 1999), pp. 69–70. ACM, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakanishi, H.: Freewalk: a social interaction platform for group behaviour in a virtual space. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60(4), 421–454 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ono, T., Kanda, T., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H.: Embodied communications between humans and robots emerging from entrained gestures. In: 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 558–563 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Social Perception and Steering for Online Avatars. In: Prendinger, H., Lester, J.C., Ishizuka, M. (eds.) IVA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5208, pp. 104–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjàlmsson, H.H.: Spontaneous Avatar Behavior for Human Territoriality. In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 344–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjàlmsson, H.H., Làrusdòttir, M.: Avatars in conversation: the importance of simulating territorial behavior. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, IVA 2010, pp. 336–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J.M., Badler, N.I.: Controlling individual agents in highdensity crowd simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation (SCA 2007). Eurographics Association, pp. 99–108. Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds, C.W.: Steering behaviors for autonomous characters. In: Game Developers Conference, San Jose, California, pp. 763–782 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Traum, D., Rickel, J.: Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds, pp. 766–773 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vilhjalmsson, H., Merchant, C., Samtani, P.: Social Puppets: Towards Modular Social Animation for Agents and Avatars. In: Schuler, D. (ed.) HCII 2007 and OCSC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4564, pp. 192–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: A model of proximity control for information-presenting robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 26(1), 187–195 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zlatev, J.: The epigenesis of meaning in human beings and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines 11, 155–195 (2001), doi:10.1023/A:1011218919464zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations