Teamwork via team plans in intelligent autonomous agent systems

  • Lawrence Cavedon
  • Anand Rao
  • Liz Sonenberg
  • Gil Tidhar
Session A-2: Distributed Objects Environments
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1274)


Intelligent agent systems are developing into an important paradigm in Artificial Intelligence and in general computer science. An agent can be seen as an autonomous system that perceives and acts on its environment, performing tasks and pursuing goals independently of user control. Recently, there has been much research interest directed toward the design of multi-agent systems that act collaboratively on tasks that are too complex for any single agent to perform on its own. We discuss the design and implementation of teamwork amongst autonomous agent systems. In particular, we describe an approach, using team plans, that addresses a number of important issues, such as: balancing autonomous behaviour with commitment to team behaviour; team formation; distribution of tasks amongst team members; coordination and synchronisation of actions.


Multiagent System Agent System Agent Architecture Team Formation Mental Attitude 
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.
    Australian AI Institute. The dMARS V1.6.11 System Overview. Melbourne, Australia, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. E. Bratman. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Brooks. Intelligence without reason. In Int'l Joint Conf. on AI, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Castelfranchi. Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Cavedon, A. S. Rao, and G. Tidhar. Social and individual commitment (preliminary report). In L. Cavedon, A. S. Rao, and W. Wobcke, editors, Intelligent Agent Systems: Theoretical and Practical Issues, LNAI Vol. 1209. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Ch'ng and L. Padgham. Role organization and planning team strategies. In 20th Australiasian Computer Science Conference, Sydney, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Teamwork. Nous, 35, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Decker and V. Lesser. Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int'l Journal on Intelligent Cooperative Information Systems, 1(2), 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Dunin-Keplicz and R. Verbrugge. Collective commitments. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, Kyoto, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Ferber and A. Drogoul. Using reactive multi-agent systems in simulation and problem solving. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Ferber and J.-P. Miiller. Influences and reaction: a model of situated multiagent systems. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, Kyoto, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Grosz and S. Kraus. Collaborative plans for group activities. In Int'l Joint Conference on AI, Chambery, France, 1993. 15. F. F. Ingrand and M. P. Georgeff. Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Int'l Joint Conference on AI, Montreal, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    D. Israel, J. Perry, and S. Tutiya. Executions, motivations and accomplishments. Philosophical Review, 4, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    N. R. Jennings. Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artificial Intelligence, 75, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    D. Kinny and M. Georgeff. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Int'l Joint Conference on AI, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    D. Kinny, M. Ljungberg, A. Rao, E. Sonenberg, G. Tidhar, and E. Werner. Planned team activity. In C. Castelfranchi and E. Werner, editors, Artificial Social Systems, LNCS Vol. 830. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    H. Kitano, M. Asada, Y. Kuniyoshi, I. Noda, and E. Osawa. Robocup: the robot world cup initiative. In IJCAI-95 Workshop on Entertainment and AI/ALife, Montreal, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    J. E. Laird, A. Newell, and P. S. Rosenbloom. SOAR: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    P. Maes. Modeling adaptive autonomous agents. Artificial Life Journal, 1, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    J. P. Müller. Control architectures for autonomous and interacting agents: A survey. In L. Cavedon, A. Rao, and W. Wobcke, editors, Intelligent Agent Systems: Theoretical and Practical Issues, LNAI Vol. 1209 Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    J. P. Müller and M. Pischel. An architecture for dynamically interacting agents. Intern'l Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 3, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    H. Nakashima, I. Noda, and K. Handa. Organic programming language GAEA for multi-agents. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, Kyoto, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Int'l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    S. J. Rosenschein and L. P. Kaelbling. The synthesis of machines with provable epistemic properties. In J. Halpern, editor, Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. Morgan Kaufman, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    M. P. Singh. Multiagent Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Intentions, Know How, and Communications. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    R. G. Smith. The contract net protocol: high level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 29(12), 1980.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    M. Tambe. Teamwork in real-world, dynamic environments. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, Kyoto, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    G. Tidhar, A. S. Rao, and E. A. Sonenberg. Guided team selection. In Int'l Conference on Multiagent Systems, Kyoto, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    G. Tidhar, M. Selvestrel, and C. Heinze. Modelling teams and team tactics in whole air mission modelling. In Eighth IEA/AIE Conference, Melbourne, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Cavedon
    • 1
  • Anand Rao
    • 2
  • Liz Sonenberg
    • 3
  • Gil Tidhar
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science Dept.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Artificial Intelligence InstituteMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Computer Science Dept.Uni. of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations