MokSAF: Agent-based Team Assistance for Time Critical Tasks Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Annual Conference of ITA ACITA 2009 Agent Support for Policy-driven Collaborative Planning in Ad-hoc Teams Martin J. Kollingbaum, Timothy J. Norman Computing.
Advertisements

What is Software Design?. Systems Development Life- Cycle Planning Analysis Design Implementation Design.
© 2005 Prentice Hall6-1 Stumpf and Teague Object-Oriented Systems Analysis and Design with UML.
Supporting the Requirement for Flexibility in Automated Business Processes using Intelligent Agents Stewart Green University of the West of England.
Effective Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Agents for Command and Control The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University PI: Katia Sycara
Yaochu Jin FTR/HRE-D August, From Interactive Evolutionary Algorithms to Agent-based Evolutionary Design Interactive Evolutionary Algorithm –When.
The Role of Software Engineering Brief overview of relationship of SE to managing DSD risks 1.
Improving Collaboration in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations March 27, 2007 Stacey D. Scott Humans & Automation Lab MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics
Summary Class responsibility cards can be used to help allocate responsibilities between different classes. The use of stereotype classes, such as entity,
JACK Intelligent Agents and Applications Hitesh Bhambhani CSE 6362, SPRING 2003 Dr. Lawrence B. Holder.
CS244-Introduction to Embedded Systems and Ubiquitous Computing Instructor: Eli Bozorgzadeh Computer Science Department UC Irvine Winter 2010.
Las Vegas 1999Katia Sycara1 Effective Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Agents for Command and Control The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University.
Requirements Analysis Concepts & Principles
Software Engineering CSE470: Requirements Analysis 1 Requirements Analysis Defining the WHAT.
RETSINA: A Distributed Multi-Agent Infrastructure for Information Gathering and Decision Support The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University PI:
Multirobot Coordination in USAR Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute
Control of UAV Teams Paul Scerri & Katia Sycara Carnegie Mellon University Michael Lewis University of Pittsburgh P-LOCAAS Flight Test AC-130 Flank Support.
Purpose of Requirements Analysis Process of discover, refinement, modeling, and specification o Bridge gap between system level SW allocation and design.
System Analysis & Design
Instructional System Design
User Interface Theory & Design
1 Lecture 5.3: SEF Ch 4 Requirements Analysis Dr. John MacCarthy UMBC CMSC 615 Fall, 2006.
S/W Project Management
G E R A C CONSORTIUM T H E logica EUCLID RTP 6.1 The GRACE Consortium Objective: To accelerate the application of AI techniques and advanced HCI and software.
Topics Covered: Software requirement specification(SRS) Software requirement specification(SRS) Authors of SRS Authors of SRS Need of SRS Need of SRS.
Intelligent Software Agents Lab The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA (U.S.A.)
1 REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING Chapter 7. 2 REQUIREMENT ENGINEERING Definition Establishing what the customer requires from a software system. OR It helps.
Multi-agent Research Tool (MART) A proposal for MSE project Madhukar Kumar.
TEAMCORE: Rapid, Robust Teams From Heterogeneous, Distributed Agents Milind Tambe & David V. Pynadath.
Zhiyong Wang In cooperation with Sisi Zlatanova
System Specification Specify system goals Develop scenarios Define functionalities Describe interface between the agent system and the environment.
Dynamic Modeling Chapter 11 Part of Analysis Modeling Designing Concurrent, Distributed, and Real-Time Applications with UML Hassan Gomaa (2001)
University of Piraeus Department of Technology Education and Digital Systems Centre for Research and Technology - Hellas(C.E.R.T.H.) Informatics and Telematics.
Approaching a Problem Where do we start? How do we proceed?
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
A G E N T S T O R M Copyright © 2000, Carnegie Mellon University
INTRO TO USABILITY Lecture 12. What is Usability?  Usability addresses the relationship between tools and their users. In order for a tool to be effective,
Carnegie Mellon Interactive Resource Management in the COMIREM Planner Stephen F. Smith, David Hildum, David Crimm Intelligent Coordination and Logistics.
Simulation is the process of studying the behavior of a real system by using a model that replicates the behavior of the system under different scenarios.
User Interface Theory & Design Lecture 6a 1.  User interface is everything the end user comes into contact with while using the system  To the user,
CS244-Introduction to Embedded Systems and Ubiquitous Computing Instructor: Eli Bozorgzadeh Computer Science Department UC Irvine Winter 2010.
Don Perugini, Dennis Jarvis, Shane Reschke, Don Gossink Decision Automation Group Command and Control Division, DSTO Distributed Deliberative Planning.
Toward a Multi-State Consensus on Rural Intersection Decision Support: Objectives u Gain understanding of issues involved with national rural intersection.
Software Life Cycle The software life cycle is the sequence of activities that occur during software development and maintenance.
Input Design Lecture 11 1 BTEC HNC Systems Support Castle College 2007/8.
CMPS 435 F08 These slides are designed to accompany Web Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (McGraw-Hill 2008) by Roger Pressman and David Lowe, copyright.
Integrating Intelligent Assistants into Human Teams Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA (412)
Chapter 6 CASE Tools Software Engineering Chapter 6-- CASE TOOLS
1 Reasons for Migrating Code The principle of dynamically configuring a client to communicate to a server. The client first fetches the necessary software,
Requirements Validation
Activity Flow Design Gabriel Spitz 1 Lecture # 12 Guiding the flow of activities.
Working Technologically Early Stage 1 – Stage 3. Students evaluate by: recounting the steps taken to reach a final solution discussing their likes and.
Behavior-based Multirobot Architectures. Why Behavior Based Control for Multi-Robot Teams? Multi-Robot control naturally grew out of single robot control.
MURI 14 Kickoff June 3, 2008 Multiplayer Games for collecting data on cultural factors in negotiation Michael Lewis.
Boeing-MIT Collaborative Time- Sensitive Targeting Project July 28, 2006 Stacey Scott, M. L. Cummings (PI) Humans and Automation Laboratory
From XML to DAML – giving meaning to the World Wide Web Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute
1 Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications A Shared Model for Mixed-initiative Synthesis Tasks.
CS223: Software Engineering
21/1/ Analysis - Model of real-world situation - What ? System Design - Overall architecture (sub-systems) Object Design - Refinement of Design.
Chapter 7 Part II Structuring System Process Requirements MIS 215 System Analysis and Design.
Brian Varela Group F February 2, 2010  Collaboration occurs when two or more people work together to achieve a common ◦ Goal ◦ Result ◦ Work product.
Towards middleware based situation awareness Leo Motus, Merik Meriste ja Jürgo-Sören Preden.
Dillon: CSE470: ANALYSIS1 Requirements l Specify functionality »model objects and resources »model behavior l Specify data interfaces »type, quantity,
1 This project has received funding from the EU’s FP7 Programme under grant agreement no A DEcision Support Tool for Reconstruction and recovery.
Fern Albery-S Tess Downes-S Matthew Kelly-S
Effective Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Agents for Command and Control The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University PI: Katia Sycara
Experimental Design Proposal
RECARE set-up Rudi Hessel on behalf of coordination team
Market-based Dynamic Task Allocation in Mobile Surveillance Systems
From Use Cases to Implementation
Presentation transcript:

MokSAF: Agent-based Team Assistance for Time Critical Tasks Katia Sycara The Robotics Institute

MokSAF Multi-Agent system that assists human teams in time-critical military planning tasks. Team goal can be decomposed to two tasks per team member: –Coordinated resource allocation; –Geo-spatial planning. Two types of agents: –MokSAF Interface agents display individual and shared routes, and facilitate communication between team members. –Route Planning Agents (RPA) generate and/or critique routes for heterogeneous military platoons through a given landscape. Research Issues - to investigate different approaches for Human/Agent interaction when assisting with team goals.

MokSAF Team Goal Commanders coordinate individual platoons on a joint task. Each platoon starts in different location, but arrives at common rendezvous. Have to negotiate: –Composition of each platoon. –Route taken by each platoon. –Resource contention (e.g. Fuel). Commanders can: –Share details of platoon composition. –Share route details. –Re-negotiate rendezvous location and time. –Discuss strategy through typed messages. Arrive at rendezvous (145,122) by 18:00. Avoid: Io Township Stots Bridge Units Required: 3 M603A 3 Hummers 1 AAV-7 …

Agents within the MokSAF environment Consists of three different Task Agents which perform route planning. –Naïve RPA – critiques user defined routes –Autonomous RPA – fastest route between two points –Collaborative RPA – refines user defined routes Users interact via individual MokSAF Interface Agents. –Interface agent used to construct, view and share routes. –Commanders communicate with each other through their personal interface agent.

MokSAF Interface Agent Intangible Constraints Alpha’s Shared Route Bravo’s Shared Route Information about team- members routes, platoons… Tools for constructing routes for the Naïve and Collaborative agents

Naïve Route Planning Agent Input parameters: –A route represented as a sequence of points. Output parameters: –An annotated route (as a sequence of points). Naïve RPA critiques route: –Checks route validity –Identifies constraint violations Used by MokSAF to review and annotate the commander’s proposed route…

Autonomous Route Planning Agent Input parameters: –Start and end points of a route. Output parameters: –The fastest route between these points (represented as a sequence of points). Factors considered when generating route: –The platoon characteristics w.r.t. type of terrain. –The volume of fuel required to successfully achieve the goal. Used by MokSAF to generate fastest (optimal) route…

Collaborative Route Planning Agent Input parameters: –A corridor represented as a sequence of points and a width. Output parameters: –The fastest route constrained by the corridor (represented as a sequence of points). Behavior: –User retains (some) control of route - as with Naïve RPA –Generation of (localized) optimal route - as with Collaborative RPA Used by MokSAF to refine and optimize the commander’s preferred route…

Experimental Tasks 3 commanders start at different locations on the map. Each commander plans a route to a single, shared rendezvous point that is to be reached by a given deadline. Each commander may need to: –Go via one or more fuel depots to refuel. –Avoid constrained regions, but traverse desirable areas. –Coordinate routes, allocation of vehicles and use of fuel depots with other commanders. –Suggest alternatives to the proposed rendezvous point or agreed meeting time. Coordination occurs via communication and plan sharing.

Experimental Results The results suggest that commanders were able to identify faster (and more economic) routes with the aided (ie autonomous or collaborative) condition, and hence shared routes faster with team mates. However, commanders complained about lack of control over the final route with the autonomous RPA: –Intangible constraints used to coerce RPA. –Desired route obtained iteratively through trial & error.

Experimental Results Commanders identified better routes faster with the Cooperative or Autonomous RPA, than with Naïve RPA –This resulted in better coordination with team mates. Users liked feedback & control gained from Naïve RPA, but found manual generation of routes tedious and slow. Users complained about lack of control over the final route when using Autonomous RPA: –Intangible constraints used to coerce RPA. –Desired route obtained iteratively through trial & error. Users expressed preference for Cooperative RPA, but use of this agent was not optimal for all scenarios.