Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict detection and resolution in collaborative planning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Intelligent Agents II Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 1995)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1037))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In multi-agent collaborative planning, since each agent is autonomous and heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts arise among the agents during the planning process. A collaborative agent, however, must be capable of detecting and resolving these conflicts. This paper describes a computational model that captures the collaborative planning process in a Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle of actions. Our model is capable of evaluating a given proposal to detect potential conflicts regarding both proposed actions and proposed beliefs, and of initiating collaborative negotiation subdialogues to resolve the detected conflicts. In situations where multiple conflicts arise, our model identifies the focus of the modification process and selects appropriate evidence to justify the necessity for such modification. Finally, our model handles the negotiation of proposed domain actions, proposed problem-solving actions, and proposed beliefs in a unified manner.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. IRI-9122026.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. James Allen. Discourse structure in the TRAINS project. In Darpa Speech and Natural Language Workshop, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alison Cawsey, Julia Galliers, Brian Logan, Steven Reece, and Karen Sparck Jones. Revising beliefs and intentions: A unified framework for agent interaction. In The Ninth Biennial Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, pages 130–139, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. A plan-based model for response generation in collaborative task-oriented dialogues. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 799–805, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. Communication for conflict resolution in multi-agent collaborative planning. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pages 49–56, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. Generating information-sharing subdialogues in expert-user consultation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. Response generation in collaborative negotiation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 136–143, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Columbia University Transcripts. Transcripts derived from audiotape conversations made at Columbia University, New York, NY. Provided by Kathleen McKeown, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Susan E. Conry, Robert A. Meyer, and Victor R. Lesser. Multistage negotiation in distributed planning. In Alan H. Bond and Les Gasser, editors, Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 367–383. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stephanie Elzer, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, and Sandra Carberry. Constructing and utilizing a model of user preferences in collaborative consultation dialogues. Computational Intelligence. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Julia R. Galliers. Autonomous belief revision and communication. In Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pages 41–58. Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Derek Gross, James F. Allen, and David R. Traum. The TRAINS 91 dialogues. Technical Report TN92-1, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barbara Grosz and Sarit Kraus. Collaborative plans for group activities. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. Plans for discourse. In Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, chapter 20, pages 417–444. MIT Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dale Hample. Refinements on the cognitive model of argument: Concreteness, involvement and group scores. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49:267–285, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Michael N. Huhns and David M. Bridgeland. Multiagent truth maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21(6):1437–1445, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ralph M. Weischedel. Living up to expectations: Computing expert responses. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 169–175, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aravind K. Joshi. Mutual beliefs in question-answer systems. In N.V. Smith, editor, Mutual Knowledge, chapter 4, pages 181–197. Academic Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lynn Lambert and Sandra Carberry. A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 47–54, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Susan E. Lander and Victor R. Lesser. Negotiated search: Cooperative search among heterogeneous expert agents. In AAAI-92 Workshop: Cooperation Among Heterogeneous Intelligent Systems, pages 74–83, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brian Logan, Steven Reece, Alison Cawsey, Julia Galliers, and Karen Sparck Jones. Belief revision and dialogue management in information retrieval. Technical Report 339, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph A. Luchok and James C. McCroskey. The effect of quality of evidence on attitude change and source credibility. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43:371–383, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. Malheiro and E. Oliveira. Consistency and context management in a multi-agent belief revision testbed. In M. Wooldridge, J. P. Müller, and M. Tambe, editors, Intelligent Agents Volume II — Proceedings of the 1995 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-95), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1996. (In this volume).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Benedita Malheiro, Nicholas R. Jennings, and Eugenio Oliveira. Belief revision in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 294–298, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Donald D. Morley. Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 54:183–203, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1):69–81, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martha E. Pollack. A model of plan inference that distinguishes between the beliefs of actors and observers. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 207–214, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  28. John C. Reinard. The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence, the status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15(1):3–59, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rodney A. Reynolds and Michael Burgoon. Belief processing, reasoning, and evidence. In Bostrom, editor, Communication Yearbook 7, chapter 4, pages 83–104. Sage Publications, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jeffery S. Rosenschein and Gilad Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter — Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. MIT Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Candace L. Sidner. Using discourse to negotiate in collaborative activity: An artificial language. In AAAI-92 Workshop: Cooperation Among Heterogeneous Intelligent Systems, pages 121–128, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Candace L. Sidner. An artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 814–819, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  33. SRI Transcripts. Transcripts derived from audiotape conversations made at SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1992. Prepared by Jacqueline Kowtko under the direction of Patti Price.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Katia Sycara. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 517–523, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Peter G. van Beek. A model for generating better explanations. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 215–220, Stanford, CA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marilyn A. Walker. Redundancy in collaborative dialogue. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 345–351, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marilyn A. Walker. Discourse and deliberation: Testing a collaborative strategy. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Michael Wooldridge and Nicholas R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Robert S. Wyer, Jr., Information redundancy, inconsistency, and novelty and their role in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6:111–127, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Michael Young, Johanna D. Moore, and Martha E. Pollack. Towards a principled representation of discourse plans. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 946–951, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Delaware, 19716, Newark, DE, USA

    Jennifer Chu-Carroll & Sandra Carberry

Authors
  1. Jennifer Chu-Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Carberry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Michael Wooldridge Jörg P. Müller Milind Tambe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chu-Carroll, J., Carberry, S. (1996). Conflict detection and resolution in collaborative planning. In: Wooldridge, M., Müller, J.P., Tambe, M. (eds) Intelligent Agents II Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. ATAL 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1037. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3540608052_62

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3540608052_62

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60805-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49594-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation