Advertisement

Reasoning and Planning with Cooperative Actions for Multiagents Using Answer Set Programming

  • Tran Cao Son
  • Chiaki Sakama
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the multiagent planning problem in the presence of cooperative actions and agents, which have their own goals and are willing to cooperate. To this end, we extend the action language \(\mathcal A\) in [12] to represent and reason about plans with cooperative actions of an individual agent operating in a multiagent environment. We then use the proposed language to formalize the multiagent planning problem and the notion of a joint plan for multiagents in this setting. We discuss a method for computing joint plans using answer set programming and provide arguments for the soundness and completeness of the implementation.

Keywords

Logic Program Planning Problem Logic Programming Cooperative Action Joint Plan 
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. 1.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I.: Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. JAIR 14, 105–136 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brenner, M.: Planning for Multiagent Environments: From Individual Perceptions to Coordinated Execution. In: Work. on Multiagent Planning & Scheduling, ICAPS, pp. 80–88 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cox, J.S., Durfee, E.H.: An efficient algorithm for multiagent plan coordination. In: AAMAS 2005, pp. 828–835 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, J.S., Durfee, E.H., Bartold, T.: A Distributed Framework for Solving the Multiagent Plan Coordination Problem. In: AAMAS, pp. 821–827. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Weerdt, M., Bos, A., Tonino, H., Witteveen, C.: A resource logic for multi-agent plan merging. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 37(1-2), 93–130 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Weerdt, M., ter Mors, A., Witteveen, C.: Multi-agent planning: An introduction to planning and coordination. In: Handouts of the Euro. Agent Summer School, pp. 1–32 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    desJardins, M., Durfee, E.H., Ortiz, C.L., Wolverton, M.: A survey of research in distributed, continual planning. AI Magazine 20(4), 13–22 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Multi-agent coordination and cooperation through classical planning. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM/IAT, pp. 398–402. IEEE Comp. Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durfee, E.: Distributed Problem Solving and Planning. In: Multiagent Systems (A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence), pp. 121–164. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: Answer Set Planning under Action Costs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19, 25–71 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Fujisaki, T., Furukawa, K., Tanaka, H. (eds.) Logic Programming 1988. LNCS, vol. 383, pp. 1070–1080. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing actions and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17(2,3,4), 301–323 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. ETAI 3(6) (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., Wilkins, D.: PDDL — the Planning Domain Definition Language. Ver. 1.2. TR1165, Yale (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kakas, A.C., Miller, R., Toni, F.: E-RES. Reasoning about Actions, Events and Observations. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 254–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lifschitz, V.: Action languages, answer sets and planning. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 357–373. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: ICLP, pp. 23–38 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Log. Prog. Paradigm: a 25-year Perspective, pp. 375–398 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. AMAI 25(3,4), 241–273 (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P., Soininen, T.: Stable model semantics for weight constraint rules. In: Proc. Logic Programming and NonMonotonic Rreasong, pp. 315–332 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. of Log. and Comp. 8(3), 261–292 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Son, T.C., Baral, C., Tran, N., McIlraith, S.: Domain-Dependent Knowledge in Answer Set Planning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7(4) (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: Planning with Preferences using Logic Programming. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 6, 559–607 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Sakama, C.: Logic Programming for Multiagent Planning with Negotiation. In: ICLP (accepted, 2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Son, T.C., Sakama, C.: Reasoning and Planning with Cooperative Actions for Multiagents Using Answer Set Programming. Technical Report (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tu, P.H., Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Reasoning and Planning with Sensing Actions, Incomplete Information, and Static Causal Laws using Logic Programming. TPLP 7, 1–74 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proceedings of ECAI (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tran Cao Son
    • 1
  • Chiaki Sakama
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Computer and Communication SciencesWakayama UniversityWakayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations