Advertisement

CommLang: Communication for Coachable Agents

  • John Davin
  • Patrick Riley
  • Manuela Veloso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3276)

Abstract

RoboCup has hosted a coach competition for several years creating a challenging testbed for research in advice-giving agents. A coach agent is expected to advise an unknown coachable team. In RoboCup 2003, the coachable agents could process the coach’s advice but did not include a protocol for communication among them. In this paper we present CommLang, a standard for agent communication which will be used by the coachable agents in the simulation league at RoboCup 2004. The communication standard supports representation of multiple message types which can be flexibly combined in a single utterance. We then describe the application of CommLang in our coachable agents and present empirical results showing the communication’s effect on world model completeness and accuracy. Communication in our agents improved the fraction of time which our agents are confident of player and ball locations and simultaneously improved the overall accuracy of that information.

Keywords

Agent Communication Ball Position World Model Message Type Communication Message 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Doyle, R., Atkinson, D., Doshi, R.: Generating perception requests andexp ectations to verify the executions of plans. In: AAAI 1986 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaminka, G., Tambe, M.: I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re OK: Experiments in distributed and centralized socially attentive monitoring. In: Agents 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xuan, P., Lesser, V., Zilberstein, S.: Communication decisions in multi-agent markov decision processes: Model and experiments. In: Agents 2001, pp. 616–623 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pynadath, D., Tambe, M.: The communicative multiagent team decision problem: Analyzing teamwork theories and models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16, 389–423 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In: IJCAI-WS 1997, pp. 584–591. Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc, San Mateo (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FIPA: FIPA ACL message structure specification (2001), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/XC00061E.html
  7. 7.
    FIPA: FIPA communicative act library specification (2001), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/XC00037H.html
  8. 8.
    Kok, J.R., Spaan, M.T.J., Vlassis, N.: Multi-robot decision making using coordination graphs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riley, P., Veloso, M.: Advice generation from observed execution: Abstract Markov decision process learning. In: AAAI 2004, (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riley, P.: Classifying adversarial behaviors in a dynamic, inaccessible, multiagent environment. Technical Report CMU-CS-99-175, Carnegie Mellon University (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Davin
    • 1
  • Patrick Riley
    • 1
  • Manuela Veloso
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations