The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards Flexible Teamwork
Open accessAbstract
Many AI researchers are today striving to build agent teams for complex, dynamic multi-agent domains, with intended applications in arenas such as education, training, entertainment, information integration, and collective robotics. Unfortunately, uncertainties in these complex, dynamic domains obstruct coherent teamwork. In particular, team members often encounter differing, incomplete, and possibly inconsistent views of their environment. Furthermore, team members can unexpectedly fail in fulfilling responsibilities or discover unexpected opportunities. Highly flexible coordination and communication is key in addressing such uncertainties. Simply fitting individual agents with precomputed coordination plans will not do, for their inflexibility can cause severe failures in teamwork, and their domain-specificity hinders reusability. Our central hypothesis is that the key to such flexibility and reusability is providing agents with general models of teamwork. Agents exploit such models to autonomously reason about coordination and communication, providing requisite flexibility. Furthermore, the models enable reuse across domains, both saving implementation effort and enforcing consistency. This article presents one general, implemented model of teamwork, called STEAM. The basic building block of teamwork in STEAM is joint intentions (Cohen & Levesque, 1991b); teamwork in STEAM is based on agents' building up a (partial) hierarchy of joint intentions (this hierarchy is seen to parallel Grosz & Kraus's partial SharedPlans, 1996). Furthermore, in STEAM, team members monitor the team's and individual members' performance, reorganizing the team as necessary. Finally, decision-theoretic communication selectivity in STEAM ensures reduction in communication overheads of teamwork, with appropriate sensitivity to the environmental conditions. This article describes STEAM's application in three different complex domains, and presents detailed empirical results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Explanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View
Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R. M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. T. (1986) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022691120807 · Cited by 1,382
Cited by
Multiagent systems: A survey from a machine learning perspective
Stone, P., & Veloso, M. (2000) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1023/a:1008942012299 · Cited by 1,218
Autonomous agents modelling other agents: A comprehensive survey and open problems
Albrecht, S. V., & Stone, P. (2018) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.01.002 · Cited by 417
Ad Hoc Autonomous Agent Teams: Collaboration without Pre-Coordination
Stone, P., Kaminka, G., Kraus, S., & Rosenschein, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7529 · Cited by 323
A preliminary poetics for interactive drama and games
Mateas, M. (2001) · Digital Creativity · doi:10.1076/digc.12.3.140.3224 · Cited by 196
(2004) · doi:10.1609/aimag.v26i3.1828 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Tambe, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
- Publisher
- AI Access Foundation
- Published
- 1997-09-01
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 83-124
- ISSN
- 1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1657704689
- Cited by
- 897
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.