Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J., "Teamwork," Nous, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1991, pp. 487-- 512.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....believes and produce normative goals. They also characterise different kinds of normadoption (parallel to goal adoption) based on different attitudes and motives about adopting the norm. However, on the one hand, the formalisation of this process based on the approach of Cohen and Levesque [8] is partial, and on the other hand they do not insert this model of norm processing in some operational architecture. For example, in their simulation experiments about norm functionalities although the theory of norms was based on explicit mental representations, they used simple reactive agents ....

Cohen, P., and Levesque, H. (1991). Teamwork, Nous, vol.35, pp. 487-512.

....laid out in the plan will obtain. They must agree that each will decide on their own actions and carry them out as specified in the plan. They must expect that the outcome spelled out by the plan will occur, and agree that this outcome is favorable. These attitudes are described more precisely in [Cohen and Levesque, 1991, Grosz and Kraus, 1996] On this understanding, a joint intention simply reflects the coordination of agents individual commitments and deliberation (contra [Searle, 1990] The actions that agents may have to take to carry out a joint project are significantly more involved than a single ....

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1991). Teamwork. Nous, 24(4):487--512.

....The fundamental aspect of a team that distinguishes them from just a group of interacting agents is that they share common goals. In the BDI framework [Rao and Georgeff, 1991; Wooldridge and Jennings, 1995] the mental state of having a team goal has been characterized in terms of joint intentions [Cohen and Levesque, 1991, Jennings, 1995] Tambe [Tambe, 1997] and his STEAM group have shown how these mental states can be established and maintained through communication protocols. Another framework for modeling teams is through SharedPlans, via intentions to do certain steps together [Grosz and Kraus, 1996] These ....

Cohen, P.R. and Levesque, H.J. Teamwork. Nous, 25(4):487-512, 1991.

....among actors, as well as the strategic rationale model for describing and supporting the reasoning that each actor goes through concerning its relationships with other actors. These models have been formalized using intentional concepts from AI, such as goal, belief, ability, and commitment (e.g. [8]) The framework has been presented in detail in [1] and has been related to different application areas, including requirements engineering [9] business process reengineering [10] and software processes [11] A strategic dependency model is a graph, where each node represents an actor, and ....

Cohen, P. and Levesque, H. "Intention is

....believes and produce normative goals. They also characterise different kinds of normadoption (parallel to goal adoption) based on different attitudes and motives about adopting the norm. However, on the one hand, the formalisation of this process based on the approach of Cohen and Levesque [6] is partial, and on the other hand they do not insert this model of norm processing in some operational architecture. For example, in their simulation experiments about norm functionalities although the theory of norms was based on explicit mental representations, they used simple reactive agents ....

Cohen, P., and Levesque, H. (1991). Teamwork, Nous, vol.35, pp. 487-512.

....and escort helicopter pilots. A second domain for our work is Robocup [Kitano et al. 1997] where we have twice successfully participated in the RoboCup tournaments. These agent teams have been developed based on a teamwork model called STEAM [Tambe 1997] STEAM is based on the joint intentions [Cohen Levesque 1991] and SharedPlans [Grosz 1996] theories of teamwork, but with practical extensions for monitoring and replanning as well as decision theoretic communication selectivity. STEAM has provided significant teamwork flexibility in all of these applications. Yet, STEAM does not address the problem of ....

....The second component of STEAM is the domain independent teamwork knowledge to enable individual agents flexible teamwork. Of particular importance here are two of the classes of domainindependent actions. The first is coherence preserving actions, derived from the joint intention theory [Cohen Levesque 1991]. These require agents to jointly activate and terminate team operators, by establishing mutual beliefs in their initiation and termination; individual operators are executed without such mutual beliefs. The second class of domain independent actions is maintenance and repair actions, for ....

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 25(4):487--512.

....collective behavior largely ignore this aspect, trying to explain coordination solely from the perspective of socially unconstrained individuals. For this reason they often impose restrictive conditions that limit the scalability of the models. For example, the Cohen Levesque account of teamwork [7] requires team members to have the same mutual goal. But this is often not true in organizations where agents have many different and sometimes conflicting goals. As a result, this model can not address coordinated behavior in the presence of multiple and possibly conflicting goals. To initiate a ....

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 15, 487-512.

....teamwork. A common example provided is ordinary traffic, which although simultaneous and coordinated by traffic signs, is not teamwork. Indeed, theories of collaboration point to novel mental constructs as underlying teamwork, such as team goals, mutual beliefs and joint commitments (Grosz, 1996; Cohen and Levesque, 1991), absent in current agent architectures. Thus, agents cannot explicitly represent their team goals and plans, or flexibly reason about their communication coordination responsibilities in teamwork; instead they rely on (problematic) pre planned coordination. In our work, we have integrated a set ....

....communication coordination responsibilities in teamwork; instead they rely on (problematic) pre planned coordination. In our work, we have integrated a set of teamwork capabilities within Soar; the combined system is called STEAM (Tambe, 1996a) STEAM is founded on the joint intentions theory (Cohen and Levesque, 1991). It enables explicit representation of team goals that expand out into goals and plans for individuals roles in the team goal. In practice, to enable multiple team members to maintain a coherent view of their team s goals and plans, STEAM additionally incorporates (1) team synchronization to ....

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J., 1991.

....orchestras, political campaigns and military exercises. These team activities are reflected in many of the multi agent domains discussed above. Such team activities are not merely a union of simultaneous, coordinated individual activities in service of their individual goals(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991). For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991) On the contrary, driving in a convoy, although sometimes uncoordinated, would be considered teamwork. Such teamwork cannot necessarily be ....

.... are not merely a union of simultaneous, coordinated individual activities in service of their individual goals(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991) For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991). On the contrary, driving in a convoy, although sometimes uncoordinated, would be considered teamwork. Such teamwork cannot necessarily be decomposed as coordinated individual activities. Consider the example of two children collaboratively building a single tower of blocks they are not ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 35.

....soccer) enjoying plays (theatre) and discussions, or watching televised military exercises. These activities are being reflected in many of the multi agentdomains discussed above. Such team activities are not merely a union of simultaneous, coordinated individual activities(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991). For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991) Indeed, our commonsense notion of teamwork involves more than simple coordination, e.g. the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as ....

....discussed above. Such team activities are not merely a union of simultaneous, coordinated individual activities(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991) For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991). Indeed, our commonsense notion of teamwork involves more than simple coordination, e.g. the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as cooperative effort by the members of a team to achieve a common goal. Yet, to sustain such cooperation in complex, dynamic domains whether it is driving in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 35.

....collective behavior largely ignore this aspect, trying to explain coordination solely from the perspective of socially unconstrained individuals. For this reason they often impose restrictive conditions that limit the scalability of the models. For example, the Cohen Levesque account of teamwork [8] requires team members to have the same mutual goal. But this is often not true in organizations where agents have many different and sometimes conflicting goals. As a result, this model can not address coordinated behavior in the presence of multiple and possibly conflicting goals. To initiate a ....

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 15, 487-512.

.... been done in Distributed Artificial Intelligence [Distributed 87] Distributed 89] Previous work has addressed topics such as negotiation [Lesser 81] Davis 83] Rosenschein 85] Durfee 87a] Durfee 91] distributed planning [Conry 86] Pope 92] and the modeling of other agents [Sycara 89] Cohen 91] Shoham 92] We are pursuing the development of a theory of coordination with immediate application to the area of supply chain management. Our model of coordination rests on the constraint based problem solving model used throughout this dissertation. We view individual agents as constraint ....

Cohen, P.R. and Levesque, H.J. Teamwork. Nous 35. 1991.

....and pose problems for means end analysis. However they are insufficient for describing collaboration joint action is more than just the sum of individual actions even if they are coordinated. Also group commitment differs from individual commitment because a team can diverge in its beliefs (Cohen and Levesque 1991). Existing models of joint intentions (Lochbaum et al. 1990; Searle 1990) provide only a partial description of the process of collaboration. Most importantly, from the perspective of industrial applications, they do not describe how joint actions may falter and how individuals and the group ....

....they do not describe how joint actions may falter and how individuals and the group should behave in such circumstances. Also as the existing models were predominantly theoretical, little consideration had been given to computational tractability. Joint responsibility builds upon and extends Cohen and Levesque s (1991) work on joint intentions defining preconditions which must be satisfied before joint problem solving can commence and extending the notion of joint commitment to plan states. Responsibility specifies that each individual within a team should remain committed to achieving the common objective by ....

Cohen, P. R.; and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 25(4).

....how G 2 p,1 will be achieved also leaves Agent 2 unconstrained as to whether it will use G 2 p,1,3 or G 2 p,1,4 . 3.1. 2 Joint Commitments When agents decide to pursue a joint action, they must jointly commit themselves to a joint goal which will bring about the desired state of affairs (Cohen and Levesque, 1991; Grosz and Sidner, 1990; Jennings, 1992; Kinny et al. 1992; Rao et al. 1992; Searle, 1990; Tuomela and Miller, 1988) This joint commitment has all the aforementioned properties of individual commitment, but it has the additional constraint that it involves more than one agent 3 . This means ....

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J., (1991) "Teamwork" Noûs 25 (4) pp 487-512.

....an orchestra, a ballet, a discussion, a play, etc. Naturally, this teamwork is being reflected in various agent worlds, e.g. RoboCup. The key in tracking such teamwork is to recognize that it is not merely a union of individual simultaneous activity, even if coordinated(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991). For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991) Teamwork involves team members joint goals and joint intentions, i.e. joint commitments to joint activities (Cohen Levesque 1991) ....

.... such teamwork is to recognize that it is not merely a union of individual simultaneous activity, even if coordinated(Grosz Sidner 1990; Cohen Levesque 1991) For instance, ordinary automobile traffic is not considered teamwork, despite the simultaneous activity, coordinated by traffic signs(Cohen Levesque 1991). Teamwork involves team members joint goals and joint intentions, i.e. joint commitments to joint activities (Cohen Levesque 1991) Consequently, tracking teamwork as independent activities of individual members is difficult. Consider the example of two children collaboratively building a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 35.

....of collective behavior largely ignore this aspect, trying to explain coordination solely from the perspective of socially unconstrained individuals. For this reason they often impose restrictive conditions that limit the generality of the models. For example, the CohenLevesque account of teamwork [Cohen Levesque 91] requires team members to have the same mutual goal. But this is not true in organizations, for example it is normal for supervisors to decompose and schedule work and assign team members different goals which they can carry out coordinately often without being even aware of each other s goals. ....

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 15, 487512.

....item is discovered, one of the agents will have satisfied its original goal. However it is part of the intuitive notion of working together that the successful agent should inform its fellow searchers that the target has been found so they can abandon their search (Bratman, 1992; Jennings, 1995; Cohen and Levesque, 1991). But such additional behaviour is not warranted by the Principle of Rationality because this informing action does not satisfy one of the finder s goals. In particular for rational agents, the notion of performing actions for the greater good is not permitted helpful actions not connected to ....

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J., (1991) "Teamwork" Noûs 25 (4) pp 487-512.

.... Thus, we assume that (BMB y x (GOAL x 9e [3(DONE y ff) INTEND1 y ff (GOAL x [3(DONE y ff) 8 Note that we could derive conditions under which it comes true, as in (Cohen Levesque 1990a) 9 The case of I don t know would handled by the need to discharge the standing joint intention (Cohen Levesque 1991) that underlies the agent architecture, namely that agents jointly intend to interact. HELPFUL y x) where ff is fINFORM y x e pg j fINFORM y x e :pg That is, the receiver y thinks it is mutually believed that the sender x wants y to inform x that p or inform x that :p, and to intend ....

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork.

No context found.

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J., "Teamwork," Nous, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1991, pp. 487-- 512.

No context found.

Cohen, P., and Levesque, H. Teamwork. NOS 25, (1991), 487-512.

No context found.

Cohen, P., and Levesque, H. (1991). Teamwork, Nous, vol.35, pp. 487-512.

No context found.

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991b. Teamwork. Nous 35.

No context found.

Cohen, P. R., and Levesque, H. J. 1991. Teamwork. Nous, 35.

No context found.

Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. 1991. Teamwork. Nous 15, 487-512.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC