Landscape of Solution Approaches

1. Landscape of Solution Approaches • coordinated action Coordinating Executing Plans Heterogeneous P/S Agents Negotiation-based Approaches Self- Scheduling Systems Market Mechanisms Constraint-based Resource Mgnt. • independent jobs/goals • optimized team behavior • high dynamics

2. Coordinating executing plans • Multiagent Plan execution semantics • Domain-independent Teamwork & Collaboration • Example: Joint Intentions Image courtesy: www.5DT.com

3. Explicit/Procedural Plan Coordination (without underlying semantics) • Simple Idea: Provide specific plans to coordinate • When at holding point, scout flies to battle position then informs those waiting at holding point that the battle position is scouted • To fly in formation, each agent is assigned someone to follow in formation (follow-the-leader) • Problem: Fragile! Difficult to get it right for all contingencies

4. Problems with Explicit, semantics-free PlansNo framework to anticipate failures; numerous ad-hoc plans • Upon reaching the holding area, the company waited, while the scout started flying forward. • Unfortunately, the scout unexpectedly crashed into a hillside. Hence, the rest of the company just waited indefinitely at the holding area, waiting to receive a message from the (crashed) scout that the battle position was scouted. • Upon recognizing that the mission was completed, one company member (the commander) returned to home base, abandoning others at the battle position • The commander’s “follower” was unexpectedly shot down, and hence it failed to coordinate with others in its company.

5. Joint-Intentions lead to Execution Robustness • Team goals/plans are represented explicitly • Individual intentions = scheduled actions • Team members have commitments and responsibilities toward others when executing a team activity. • Commitments to not just local actions, but achievement of overall goal • Other approaches possible, e.g. SharedPlans [Grosz & Kraus 96] • Tries to avoid need for joint mental attitude • Hierarchical plans

6. Explicit Model of Teamworkusing Joint-Intentions (Cohen & Levesque) • A team  jointly intends a team action • if team members are jointly committed to completing that team action • while mutually believing that they were doing it (not unintentional) • Joint commitment is defined as joint persistent goal (JPG) • JPG (,p) = “Team  has a joint persistent goal to achieve p” • entire team can be treated as jointly committed to a team plan • Bunch of helicopters flying on own to a waypoint IS NOT the same as a team flying to a waypoint. • Difference may be only in mental state, if nothing goes wrong… • Success of the team may not require each individual to successfully complete its journey

7. Conditions for JPG to Hold • All team members  in  mutually believe ¬pcurrently. • All team members mutually know they want peventually. • All team members mutually believe that until p is mutually known to be achieved, unachievable or irrelevant, they mutually believe that they each hold p as a weak achivement goal (WAG): • Either privately believes ¬p and wants p eventually, • Or, having privately discovered p to be achieved, unachievable or irrelevant,  has committed to having this private belief become ‘s mutual belief

8. Example:STEAM—a Shell for TEAMwork [Tambe] • Computationally tractable Joint-Intention framework to handle • Communication costs • Uncertainty about state other team members • Single and Multiple Team member failure • Evolving hierarchy of joint events • Domain-independent approach to establish and maintain joint-intentions • Organizational roles & dependencies • Folds in some of the hierarchical representation used by SharedPlans theory

9. STEAM Overview Team-oriented Programs: Explicit team reactive plans/operators • Hierarchically expand into individual plans/operators • Roles, e.g., lead role in formation flying, with constraints Domain-independent plans for • Coherence Preservation [establish joint commitments] • Maintenance & Repair [monitor and fix, or decommit] Execute mission [Company A] [Company A] Engage [Attack Platoon A1] Fly-flight-plan Fly-route [Individual A1-a] Employ-weapons Lead Follow

10. Situated Plans (Reactive Plans) • Situated/reactive plan consists of: • Preconditions, matched with agents’ beliefs • Termination conditions, to terminate plan when matched • Plan body to execute when plan activated • May invoke external or internal or no action • Example: Plan Attend-Agents-Workshop • Precondition: Saw agents workshop call for participation • Body: Register for workshop, fly, attend sessions, fly-back.. • Termination condition: Attended agents workshop

11. Coherence Preservation: Establish Commitments • Team leader broadcasts a message to the team  to establish PWAG (persistent weak achievement goal) to operator OP. Leader now establishes PWAG. If JPG(,OP) not established within time limit, repeat broadcast. • Subordinates i in the team wait until they receive leader’s message. Then, turn by turn, broadcast to  establishment of PWAG for OP; and establish PWAG. • Wait until  i, i establish PWAG for OP; establish JPG(,OP) Hierarchy of jointly committed team plans implies coherence when executing & terminating team plans

12. Maintenance & Repair All team plans executed by forming & terminating joint commitments: • Request-confirm exchanges so all team members select & commit • Establish mutual belief for achieved, unachievable,… to terminate • Explicit constraints on individual/subteam roles & team goal • Form, repair, terminate team plans: All communication in STEAM Example: Team of helicopters jointly commit to “execute mission” • If commander privately believes mission unachievable… • Commander must establish mutual belief in termination condition • It communicates (and confirms) mission unachievable: no one left behind

13. Maintenance and Repair, cont. • Scouting failure example: Wait-for-battle-position-scouted is the team plan • AND-combination: Scout and Non-scout roles in team plan • If scout crashes, the scout role is not fulfilled • AND-combination implies that the team plan fails • Joint commitment to replan by reorganization, if critical failures • Determine candidates for roles via capability matching • Candidates for roles ensure no conflicting critical commitments • Individual/subteam may volunteer • If multiple candidates, compare based on capability • Highest capability agent wins • Scouting failure examplecontinued • Locate other pilots capable of scouting • New candidate scout ensure no conflicting commitments • Candidate scout(s) volunteer • Best capability scout wins