Advertisement

Using Autonomy, Organizational Design and Negotiation in a Distributed Sensor Network

  • Bryan Horling
  • Roger Mailler
  • Jiaying Shen
  • Regis Vincent
  • Victor Lesser
Part of the Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations book series (MASA, volume 9)

Abstract

In this paper we describe our solution to a real-time distributed tracking problem. The system works not by finding an optimal solution, but through a satisficing search for an allocation that is “goodenough” to meet the specified resource requirements, which can then be revised over time if needed. The agents in the environment are first organized by partitioning them into sectors, reducing the level of potential interaction between agents. Within each sector, agents dynamically specialize to address scanning, tracking, or other goals, which are instantiated as task structures for use by the SRTA control architecture. These elements exist to support resource allocation, which is directly effected through the use of the SPAM negotiation protocol. The agent problem solving component first discovers and generates commitments for sensors to use for gathering data, then determines if conflicts exist with that allocation, finally using arbitration and relaxation strategies to resolve such conflicts. We have empirically tested and evaluated these techniques in both the Radsim simulation environment and using the hardware-based system.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Partial Solution Organizational Design Directory Service Full Solution 
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. Bordini, R., Bazzan, A., Jannone, R., Basso, D., Vicari, R., and Lesser, V. (2002). Agentspeak(xl): Efficient intention selection in bdi agents via decision-theoretic task scheduling. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  2. Decker, K. S. and Lesser, V. R. (1993). Quantitative modeling of complex environments. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance, and Management, 2(4):215–234. Special issue on “Mathematical and Computational Models of Organizations: Models and Characteristics of Agent Behavior”.Google Scholar
  3. Horling, B. and Lesser, V. (1998). A reusable component architecture for agent construction. Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as UMASS CS TR-98-30.Google Scholar
  4. Horling, B., Lesser, V., Vincent, R., Raja, A., and Zhang, S. (1999). The TÆMS white paper, http://mas.cs.umass.edu/res-earch/taems/white/.Google Scholar
  5. Horling, B., Lesser, V., Vincent, R., and Wagner, T. (2002). The soft real-time agent control architecture. Computer Science Technical Report TR-02-14, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Jensen, D., Atighetchi, M., Vincent, R., and Lesser, V. (1999). Learning quantitative knowledge for multiagent coordination. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Orlando, FL. AAAI.Google Scholar
  7. Lesser, V, Horling, B., Klassner, F., Raja, A., Wagner, T., and Zhang, S. (2000). Big: An agent for resource-bounded information gathering and decision making. In Artificial Intelligence Journal, Special Issue on Internet Information Agents (also available as UMass Computer Science Technical Report 1998-52), volume 118, pages 197–244. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  8. Mailler, R., Vincent, R., Lesser, V., Shen, J., and Middlekoop, T. (2001). Soft real-time, cooperative negotiation for distributed resource allocation. In Proceedings of the 2001 AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation.Google Scholar
  9. Minton, S., Johnston, M. D., Philips, A. B., and Laird, P. (1992). Minimizing conflicts: A heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence, 58(1–3):161–205.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Raja, A. and Lesser, V. (2002). Meta-level control in multi-agent systems. Proceedings of AAAI/KDD/UAI-2002 Joint Workshop on Real-Time Decision Support and Diagnosis Systems. (Also UMass Computer Science Technical Report 01–49, Nov. 2001), WS-02-15:47–53.Google Scholar
  11. Sims, M., Goldman, C., and Lesser, V. (2003). Self-organization through bottom-up coalition formation. In Proceedings of Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2003). To appear.Google Scholar
  12. Sycara, K., Decker, K., and Williamson, M. (1997). Middle-agents for the internet. In Proceedings of IJCAI-97.Google Scholar
  13. Vincent, R., Horling, B., Lesser, V., and Wagner, T. (2001). Implementing soft real-time agent control. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wagner, T., Garvey, A., and Lesser, V. (1998). Criteria-Directed Heuristic Task Scheduling. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Special Issue on Scheduling, 19(1–2):91–118. A version also available as UMASS CS TR-97-59.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang, X., Raja, A., Lerner, B., Lesser, V., Osterweil, L., and Wagner, T. (2000). Integrating high-level and detailed agent coordination into a layered architecture. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Infrastructure for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, pages 72–79. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Also available as UMass Computer Science Technical Report 1999-029.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan Horling
    • 1
  • Roger Mailler
    • 1
  • Jiaying Shen
    • 1
  • Regis Vincent
    • 2
  • Victor Lesser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations