Advertisement

A Logical View on Teamwork

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
  • Rineke Verbrugge
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7010)

Abstract

This chapter presents the non-dynamic part of a formal framework for teamwork in multi-agent systems. The framework consists of both a static part, defining collective motivational attitudes in such a way that the system developer can adapt them to the circumstances, and a dynamic part monitoring the changes in team attitudes during the course of cooperative problem solving (CPS).

In the first part of this chapter, the notion of collective intention in teams of agents is investigated. Starting from individual intentions, goals, and beliefs defining agents’ local attitudes, we arrive at an understanding of collective intention in cooperative teams as a rather strong concept: it implies that all members intend for all others to share that intention. This way a team is glued together by collective intention, and exists as long as this attitude holds, after which it may disintegrate.

Collective intentions are formalized in a multi-modal logical framework. Together with individual and common knowledge and/or belief, collective intention constitutes a basis for preparing a plan, reflected in the strongest attitude, i.e., in collective commitment, defined and investigated in the next part. Distinct versions of collective commitments that are applicable in various situations, differ with respect to the aspects of teamwork of which the agents involved are aware, and the kind of awareness present within a team. This way a kind of tuning mechanism is provided for the system developer to tune a version of collective commitment fitting the circumstances. Finally, a few exemplar versions of collective commitment resulting from instantiating the general tuning scheme are presented.

Keywords

Modal Logic Multiagent System Common Belief Kripke Model Social Plan 
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.
    Akkerman, S., van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R., Kirschner, P.: Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review 2, 39–63 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borrill, C., West, M.: The psychology of effective teamworking. In: Gold, N. (ed.) Teamwork, pp. 136–160. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.: Faces of Intention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: Realistic desires. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 12(2), 287–308 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen, J., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: Embedding Alternating-time Temporal Logic in strategic STIT logic of agency. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(5), 559–578 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Lesser, V. (ed.) Proceedings First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 41–48. AAAI-Press and MIT Press, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castelfranchi, C., Miceli, M., Cesta, A.: Dependence relations among autonomous agents. In: Werner, Demazeau (eds.) [55]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavedon, L., Rao, A., Tidhar, G.: Social and Individual Commitment (Preliminary Report). In: Cavedon, L., Wobcke, W., Rao, A. (eds.) PRICAI-WS 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1209, pp. 152–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dennett, D.: The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dignum, F., Conte, R.: Intentional agents and goal formation: Extended abstract. In: Singh, M., Rao, A., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Preproceedings Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 219–231 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dignum, F., Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9, 145–158 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Approach. Wiley, Chichester (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective commitments. In: Tokoro, M. (ed.) Proceedings Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 56–63. AAAI-Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective motivational attitudes in cooperative problem solving. In: Gorodetsky, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop of Eastern and Central Europe on Multi-agent Systems (CEEMAS 1999), St. Petersburg, pp. 22–41 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: A reconfiguration algorithm for distributed problem solving. Engineering Simulation 18, 227–246 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective intentions. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 271–295 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Evolution of collective commitments during teamwork. Fundamenta Informaticae 56, 329–371 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: A tuning machine for cooperative problem solving. Fundamenta Informaticae 63, 283–307 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dziubiński, M., Verbrugge, R., Dunin-Kęplicz, B.: Complexity issues in multiagent logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 75(1-4), 239–262 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gärdenfors, P.: The Cognitive and Communicative Demands of Cooperation. In: van Eijck, J., Verbrugge, R. (eds.) Games, Actions and Social Software 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7010, pp. 164–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gilbert, M.: A theoretical framework for the understanding of teams. In: Gold, N. (ed.) Teamwork, pp. 22–32. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graedel, E.: Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? Bulletin of the EATCS 68, 90–103 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grosz, B., Kraus, S.: The evolution of SharedPlans. In: Rao, A., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Foundations of Rational Agency, pp. 227–262. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haddadi, A.: Communication and Cooperation in Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1056. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Halpern, J.: The effect of bounding the number of primitive propositions and the depth of nesting on the complexity of modal logic. Artificial Intelligence 75, 361–372 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halpern, J., Zuck, L.: A little knowledge goes a long way: Simple knowledge-based derivations and correctness proofs for a family of protocols. In: 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 268–280 (1987)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horty, J.F., Belnap, N.: The deliberative Stit: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24(6), 583–644 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huczynski, A., Buchanan, D.: Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, 6th edn. Pearson Education Ltd., Essex (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R.: On evaluating decision procedures for modal logics. In: Pollack, M. (ed.) Proceedings IJCAI 1997. Morgan Kauffman, Los Angeles (1997)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jennings, N.: Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 3, 223–250 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kozlowski, S., Bell, B.: Work groups and teams in organizations. In: Borman, W., Ilgen, D., Klimoski, R. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 333–375. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kozlowski, S.W.J., Ilgen, D.R.: Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 77–124 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Levesque, H., Cohen, P., Nunes, J.: On acting together. In: Proceedings Eighth National Conference on AI (AAAI 1990), pp. 94–99. AAAI-Press and MIT Press, Menlo Park (CA), Cambridge, MA (1990)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meyer, J., van der Hoek, W.: Epistemic Logic for AI and Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Osborne, M.: An Introduction to Game Theory. Oxford University Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quine, W.: Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53, 177–187 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufman (1991)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M., Sonenberg, E.: Social plans: A preliminary report. In: Werner, Demazeau (eds.) [55], pp. 57–76Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rasmusen, E.: Games and Information, 4th edn. Blackwell, Malden (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Segerberg, K.: Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18, 327–347 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Singh, M.: Commitments among autonomous agents in information-rich environments. In: Boman, M., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1237, pp. 141–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stulp, F., Verbrugge, R.: A knowledge-based algorithm for the internet protocol TCP. Bulletin of Economic Research 54(1), 69–94 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Su, K., Sattar, A., Lin, H., Reynolds, M.: A modal logic for beliefs and pro attitudes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), vol. 1, pp. 496–501. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tomasello, M.: Why We Cooperate. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tuomela, R.: The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford Series in Philosophy. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1995)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tuomela, R., Miller, K.: We-intentions. Philosophical Studies 53, 367–390 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.: Formalising abilities and opportunities of agents. Fundamenta Informaticae 34, 53–101 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vardi, M.: Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? DIMACS Series on Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 31, 149–184 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weiss, G. (ed.): Multiagent Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Werner, E., Demazeau, Y. (eds.): Decentralized A.I.-3. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning About Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: Towards a theory of collective problem solving. In: Perram, J., Müller, J.P. (eds.) MAAMAW 1994. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1069, pp. 40–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: Cooperative problem solving. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 563–592 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rineke Verbrugge
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsWarsaw UniversityWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Computer SciencePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations