Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning for Interactions among Autonomous Agents

  • Conference paper
Programming Multi-Agent Systems (ProMAS 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5442))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

AI planning research has traditionally focused on offline pl- anning for static single-agent environments. In environments where an agent needs to plan its interactions with other autonomous agents, planning is much more complicated, because the actions of the other agents can induce a combinatorial explosion in the number of contingencies that the planner will need to consider. This paper discusses several ways to alleviate the combinatorial explosion, and illustrates their use in several different kinds of multi-agent planning domains.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Cimatti, A., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking. Artificial Intelligence 147(1-2), 35–84 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Pistore, M., Bettin, R., Traverso, P.: Symbolic techniques for planning with extended goals in non-deterministic domains. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Planning (ECP) (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Planning as model checking for extended goals in non-deterministic domains. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Seattle, USA, pp. 479–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bertoli, P., Cimatti, A., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: MBP: a model based planner. In: Proceeding of ICAI 2001 workshop on Planning under Uncertainty and Incomplete Information, Seattle, USA, pp. 93–97 (August 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bryant, R.E.: Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys 24(3), 293–318 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Koenig, S., Simmons, R.G.: Real-time search in non-deterministic domains. In: IJCAI 1995 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tate, A.: Project planning using a hierarchic non-linear planner. Technical Report 25, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sacerdoti, E.: A Structure for Plans and Behavior. American Elsevier, Amsterdam (1977)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Erol, K., Hendler, J., Nau, D.S.: Complexity results for hierarchical task-network planning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 18, 69–93 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kambhampati, S.: Are we comparing Dana and Fahiem or SHOP and TLPlan? a critique of the knowledge-based planning track at ICP (2003), http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/kbplan.pdf

  12. Nau, D.: Current trends in automated planning. AI Magazine 28(4), 43–58 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kuter, U., Nau, D.: Forward-chaining planning in nondeterministic domains. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 513–518 (July 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kuter, U., Nau, D., Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: A hierarchical task-network planner based on symbolic model checking. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 300–309 (June 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kuter, U., Nau, D., Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Task decomposition on abstract states, for planning under nondeterminism. Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Korf, R.: Real-time heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence 42(2–3), 189–211 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffmann, J., Nebel, B.: The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14, 253–302 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2), 123–191 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Nau, D.S., Muñoz-Avila, H., Cao, Y., Lotem, A., Mitchell, S.: Total-order planning with partially ordered subtasks. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Seattle (August 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dix, J., Muñoz-Avila, H., Nau, D.S., Zhang, L.: IMPACTing SHOP: Planning in a multi-agent environment. In: Sadri, F., Satoh, K. (eds.) Proc. Second Workshop on Computational Logic and Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA), London, Imperial College, pp. 30–42 (July 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Georgeff, M.P., Lansky, A.L.: Reactive reasoning and planning. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 677–682 (1987); reprinted in [47], pp. 729–734

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: van Hoe, R. (ed.) Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Firby, R.J.: Adaptive execution in complex dynamic worlds. PhD thesis 672, Yale University (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sardiña, S., de Silva, L., Padgham, L.: Hierarchical planning in BDI agent programming languages: A formal approach. In: AAMAS, Hakodate, Japan, pp. 1001–1008 (May 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sardiña, S., Padgham, L.: Goals in the context of BDI plan failure and planning. In: AAMAS, Honolulu, HI, pp. 16–24 (May 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Billings, D.: The first international RoShamBo programming competition. ICGA Journal 23(1), 42–50 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Billings, D.: Thoughts on RoShamBo. ICGA Journal 23(1), 3–8 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Billings, D.: The second international roshambo programming competition (2001), http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html

  30. Li, D.: Kriegspiel: Chess Under Uncertainty. Premier (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li, D.: Chess Detective: Kriegspiel Strategies, Endgames and Problems. Premier (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Parker, A., Nau, D., Subrahmanian, V.: Overconfidence or paranoia? search in imperfect-information games. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (July 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Boutilier, C., Dean, T.L., Hanks, S.: Decision-theoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 1–94 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Aumann, R.: Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games. In: Luce, R.D., Tucker, A.W. (eds.) Contributions to the Theory of Games, vol. 4. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Au, T.C., Nau, D.: Accident or intention: That is the question (in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma). In: International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Au, T.C., Nau, D.: Is it accidental or intentional? a symbolic approach to the noisy iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In: Kendall, G., Yao, X., Chong, S.Y. (eds.) The Iterated Prisoners Dilemma: 20 Years On, pp. 231–262. World Scientific, Singapore (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Axelrod, R., Dion, D.: The further evolution of cooperation. Science 242(4884), 1385–1390 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bendor, J.: In good times and bad: Reciprocity in an uncertain world. American Journal of Politicial Science 31(3), 531–558 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bendor, J., Kramer, R.M., Stout, S.: When in doubt.. cooperation in a noisy prisoner’s dilemma. The Jour. of Conflict Resolution 35(4), 691–719 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Molander, P.: The optimal level of generosity in a selfish, uncertain environment. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 29(4), 611–618 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mueller, U.: Optimal retaliation for optimal cooperation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 31(4), 692–724 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nowak, M., Sigmund, K.: The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoner’s dilemma. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae 20, 247–265 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Kendall, G., Yao, X., Chong, S.Y.: The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma: 20 Years On. World Scientific, Singapore (2007)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Au, T.C., Nau, D.: An analysis of derived belief strategy’s performance in the 2005 iterated prisoner’s dilemma competition. Technical Report CSTR-4756/UMIACS-TR-2005-59, University of Maryland, College Park (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Smith, S.J.J., Nau, D.S., Throop, T.: A planning approach to declarer play in contract bridge. Computational Intelligence 12(1), 106–130 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Allen, J.F., Hendler, J., Tate, A. (eds.): Readings in Planning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

    Tsz-Chiu Au, Ugur Kuter & Dana Nau

Authors
  1. Tsz-Chiu Au
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ugur Kuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dana Nau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EEMCS, Delft University of Technology,, The Netherlands

    Koen V. Hindriks

  2. Distributed Systems and Information Systems, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Alexander Pokahr

  3. School of Computer Science and Information Technology, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    Sebastian Sardina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Au, TC., Kuter, U., Nau, D. (2009). Planning for Interactions among Autonomous Agents. In: Hindriks, K.V., Pokahr, A., Sardina, S. (eds) Programming Multi-Agent Systems. ProMAS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5442. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03278-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03278-3_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03277-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03278-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation