Advertisement

Evaluating alternate connection designs through multiagent negotiation

Designer fabricator interpreter system
  • Keith J. Werkman
  • Marcello Barone
  • Stephanie J. Wagaman
  • John Isman Wilson
  • Donald J. Hillman
Negotiation
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 492)

Abstract

The Designer Fabricator Interpreter (DFI) is a knowledge-based system that addresses the lack of interaction among structural designers, fabricators and erectors in dealing with beam-to-column connections. Current research includes the development of a distributed problem-solving architecture in which the participants are modeled as semi-autonomous computer agents which reason from their own specific viewpoints while evaluating a connection. During the evaluation process, agents propose alternative connections for consideration which may require a negotiation process among the agents. If they cannot resolve the problem, an arbitrator agent is enlisted to help the conflicting agents reach an agreement. Potentially “better” alternate connection configurations along with reasons behind the choices are presented from the viewpoints of design, fabrication and erection.

Keywords

User Model Negotiation Process Discourse Model Agent Negotiation Connection Evaluation 
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]
    Allen, James F. and Perrault, C. Raymond, “Analyzing Intention in Utterances”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1980, pp. 441–458.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Ayers, C., Specifications: For Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Barone, Marcello, “Designer Fabricator Interpreter: A Step Towards Computer Integrated Construction”, Master's thesis, Lehigh University, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Barone, Marcello, Werkman, Keith J., Wilson, John L., and Hillman, Donald J., “A Knowledge-Based System for the Evaluation of Beam-to-Column Connections”, NSF-ERC ATLSS Report 89-11, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Alan H. Bond and Les Gasser, Eds., Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 2929 Campus Drive, San Mateo, California, 94403, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bruce, Bertram C., “Belief Systems and Language Understanding”, BBN Report No. 2973, AI Report No. 21, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Chin, David N., “User Models and Discourse Models”, Computational Linguistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Conry, S., Meyer, R. and Lesser, V., “Multistage Negotiation in Distributed Planning”, Tech. report COINS TR86-87, University of Massachusetts, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Corkill, Daniel D. and Lesser, Victor R., “The Use of Meta-Level Control for Coordination in a Distributed Problem Solving Network”, Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, 1983, pp. 748–756.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Davis, Randall and Smith, Reid G., “Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 20, 1983, pp. 63–109.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gasser, Les and Huhns, Michael N., editor, Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume II, Pitman/Morgan Kaufmann, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Huhns, Michael N., Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 95 First Street, Los Altos, CA 94022, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kass, Robert and Finin, Tim, “Acquiring User Models for Tailoring Explanations”, Proceedings of the AAAI'88 Workshop on Explanation, Sponsored by AAAI, St. Paul, MN, August 1988, pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Maher, Mary Lou, “HI-RISE and Beyond”, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 17, No. 9, November 1985, pp. 420–427.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    McKeown, Kathleen R., Wish, Myron and Matthews, Kevin, “Tailoring Explanations for the User”, Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, Los Angeles, CA, 1985, pp. 794–798.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Nii, H. Penny, “Blackboard Systems, Part 2”, AI Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1986, pp. 82–106.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Pruitt, Dean G., Negotiation Behavior, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and Brown, Bert R., The Social Psychology of Barganing and Negotiation, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Sanvido, Victor E., “An Integrated Building Process Model-A Life Cycle Approach to Planning, Design, Construction and Operations”, ATLSS Seminar Series, The Pennsylvania State University, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Schuster, Ethel, “Establishing the Relationship Between Discourse Models and User Models”, Computational Linguistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 82–85.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Simpson, G.W. and Cochran, J.K., “An Analytic Approach to Prioritizing Construction Projects”, Civil Engineering Systems, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1987, pp. 185–190.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Sowa, John F., Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Sparck Jones, Karen, “User Models, Discourse Models, and Some Others”, Computational Linguistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 98–100.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Sriram, D, “DICE: An Object Oriented Programming Environment for Cooperative Engineering Design”, Tech. report IESL-89-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989, Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Steeb, R., McArthur, D., Cammarata, S., Narian, S. and Giarla, W., “Distributed Problem Solving for Air Fleet Control: Framework and Implementation”, Tech. report N-2139-ARPA, Rand Note, 1984.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Strauss, Anselm, Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order, Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, San Fransisco, CA, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Sycara, Katia P., “Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation”, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1988, pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Sycara, Katia P., “Argumentation: Planning Other Agent's Plans”, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., Detroit, MI, August 1989, pp. 517–523.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Tenney, Robert R. and Sandell, Nils R., Jr., “Strategies for Distributed Decisionmaking”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-11, No. 8, August 1981, pp. 527–538.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Wahlster, Wolfgang, “Distinguishing User Models from Discourse Models”, Computational Linguistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 101–103.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Werkman, Keith J. and Hillman, Donald J., “Designer Fabricator Interpreter System: Using Conceptual Graphs to Represent Perspectives Between Cooperating Agents”, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Conceptual Graphs, IJCAI-89, Detroit, MI, August 1989, pp. 1–5, Section 4.14.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Werkman, Keith James, Multiagent Cooperative Problem Solving Through Negotation and Perspective Sharing, PhD dissertation, Lehigh University, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Wilson, John L., “Computer-Integrated Construction”, NSF Workshop on Construction Automation, Proceedings, Allentown, PA, April 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith J. Werkman
    • 1
  • Marcello Barone
    • 2
  • Stephanie J. Wagaman
  • John Isman Wilson
    • 3
  • Donald J. Hillman
    • 4
  1. 1.Owego Laboratory, MD 0210IBM Corporation/FSDOwegoUSA
  2. 2.Bechtel CorporationSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Packard Laboratory #19Lehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations