What is involved when a group of agents decide to do something together? Joint action by a team appears to involve more than just the union of simultaneous individual actions, even when those actions are coordinated. We would not say that there is any teamwork involved in ordinary automobile traffic, even though the drivers act simultaneously and are coordinated (one hopes) by the traffic signs and rules of the road. But when a group of drivers decide to do something together, (...) such as driving somewhere as a convoy, it appears that the group acts more like a single agent with beliefs, goals, and intentions of its own, over and above the individual ones. [more]. (shrink)

We adopt the decision-theoretic principle of expected utility maximization as a paradigm for designing autonomous rational agents, and present a framework that uses this paradigm to determine the choice of coordinated action. We endow an agent with a specialized representation that captures the agent's knowledge about the environment and about the other agents, including its knowledge about their states of knowledge, which can include what they know about the other agents, and so on. This reciprocity leads to a recursive nesting (...) of models. Our framework puts forth a representation for the recursive models and, under the assumption that the nesting of models is finite, uses dynamic programming to solve this representation for the agent's rational choice of action. Using a decision-theoretic approach, our work addresses concerns of agent decision-making about coordinated action in unpredictable situations, without imposing upon agents pre-designed prescriptions, or protocols, about standard rules of interaction. We implemented our method in a number of domains and we show results of coordination among our automated agents, among human-controlled agents, and among our agents coordinating with human-controlled agents. (shrink)

In this paper, we investigate the use of event models for automated planning. Event models are the action defining structures used to define a semantics for dynamic epistemic logic. Using event models, two issues in planning can be addressed: Partial observability of the environment and knowledge. In planning, partial observability gives rise to an uncertainty about the world. For single-agent domains, this uncertainty can come from incomplete knowledge of the starting situation and from the nondeterminism of actions. In multi-agent domains, (...) an additional uncertainty arises from the fact that other agents can act in the world, causing changes that are not instigated by the agent itself. For an agent to successfully construct and execute plans in an uncertain environment, the most widely used formalism in the literature on automated planning is “belief states”: sets of different alternatives for the current state of the world. Epistemic logic is a significantly more expressive and theoretically better founded method for representing knowledge and ignorance about the world. Further, epistemic logic allows for planning according to the knowledge (and iterated knowledge) of other agents, allowing the specification of a more complex class of planning domains, than those simply concerned with simple facts about the world. We show how to model multi-agent planning problems using Kripke-models for representing world states, and event models for representing actions. Our mechanism makes use of slight modifications to these concepts, in order to model the internal view of agents, rather than that of an external observer. We define a type of planning domain called epistemic planning domains, a generalisation of classical planning domains, and show how epistemic planning can successfully deal with partial observability, nondeterminism, knowledge and multiple agents. Finally, we show epistemic planning to be decidable in the single-agent case, but only semi-decidable in the multi-agent case. (shrink)