Knowledge-based conflict resolution for cooperation among expert agents

  • Susan E. Lander
  • Victor R. Lesser
  • Margaret E. Connell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 492)


Cooperating human experts are able to integrate their skills and knowledge productively to achieve goals beyond their individual capabilities. Machine agents may someday increase their power similarly by working in teams of specialized experts. To do this, the systems must be able to communicate knowledge, propose solutions, resolve conflicts that occur during problem-solving, and agree on results. We describe the Cooperating Experts Framework (CEF), a generic framework that supports cooperative problem-solving among sets of knowledge-based systems. The systems solve subproblems relevant to their specific expertise and integrate their efforts using conflict resolution strategies. CEF provides scheduling and communication support for the agents, a set of conflict resolution strategies, and a set of heuristics for choosing the most effective strategy for the situation. We also describe STEAMER, a system implemented in the CEF framework, that designs steam condensers.


Heat Exchanger Conflict Resolution Conflict Situation Steam Condenser Negotiation Model 
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]
    S. Cammarata, D. McArthur and R. Steeb. Strategies of Cooperation in Distributed Problem Solving. In Proceedings of the Eigth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 767–770, Karlsruhe, West Germany, August 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Susan E. Conry, Robert A. Meyer, and Victor R. Lesser. Multistage negotiation in distributed planning. Technical Report 86-67, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, December 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Daniel D. Corkill, Kevin Q. Gallagher, and Kelly E. Murray. GBB: A generic blackboard development system. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1008–1014, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Randall Davis and Reid G. Smith. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 20:63–109, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Edward de Bono. Lateral Thinking for Management, A handbook of creativity. American Management Association, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Edmund H. Durfee and Victor R. Lesser. Negotiation through partial global planning. In Michael N. Huhns, editor, Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2, Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Pitman, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Lee D. Erman, Frederick Hayes-Roth, Victor R. Lesser, and D. Raj Reddy. The Hearsay-II speech-understanding system: Integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Computing Surveys, 12(2):213–253, June 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.S. Fox, B. Allen, and G. Strohm. Job-shop scheduling: an investigation in constraint-directed reasoning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 155–158, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Carl Hewitt. Offices are open systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3):271–287, July 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C.T. Kitzmiller and V. Jagannathan. Design in a distributed blackboard framework. In Workshop on Intelligent CAI, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, October 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Klein and S.C-Y. Lu. Conflict Resolution in Cooperative Design. in International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, in press.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Thomas Kreifelts and Frank V. Martial. A Negotiation Framework for Autonomous Agents. Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Modeling Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Worlds, Paris, August 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kenneth L. Meunier. Iterative Respecification: A Computational Model for Automating Parametric Mechanical System Design. Master's Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, February 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Mostow. Toward better models of the design process. AI Magazine, 6(1):44–57, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.F. Orelup, J.R. Dixon, P.R. Cohen, and M.K. Simmons. Dominic II: Meta-level control in iterative redesign. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 25–30, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dean G. Pruitt. Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Arvind Sathi, Thomas E. Morton, and Steven F. Roth. Callisto: an intelligent project management system. AI Magazine, 7(5):34–52, Winter 1986.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    John R. Searle. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Katia Sycara. Resolving goal conflicts via negotiation. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 245–250, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Katia P. Sycara. Negotiation in Design. In Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, MIT, Cambridge, MA, November 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan E. Lander
    • 1
  • Victor R. Lesser
    • 1
  • Margaret E. Connell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations