Scheduling with Uncertain Resources Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning RADAR.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Confidentiality/date line: 13pt Arial Regular, white Maximum length: 1 line Information separated by vertical strokes, with two spaces on either side Disclaimer.
Advertisements

Distributed Multimedia Systems
RADAR EVALUATION Goals, Targets, Review & Discussion Jaime Carbonell & soon Full SRI/CMU/IET RADAR Team 1-February-2005 School of Computer Science Supported.
EXPERT SYSTEMS apply rules to solve a problem. –The system uses IF statements and user answers to questions in order to reason just like a human does.
Scheduling with uncertain resources Search for a near-optimal solution Eugene Fink, Matthew Jennings, Ulaş Bardak, Jean Oh, Stephen Smith, and Jaime Carbonell.
Scheduling with uncertain resources Elicitation of additional data Ulaş Bardak, Eugene Fink, Chris Martens, and Jaime Carbonell Carnegie Mellon University.
Effective Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Agents for Command and Control The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University PI: Katia Sycara
An Agent Capable of Learning to Create and Maintain Websites Anthony Tomasic, Ravi Mosur Alex Rudnicky, Raj Reddy, John Zimmerman Carnegie Mellon University.
Brent Dingle Marco A. Morales Texas A&M University, Spring 2002
1 An Asymptotically Optimal Algorithm for the Max k-Armed Bandit Problem Matthew Streeter & Stephen Smith Carnegie Mellon University NESCAI, April
1 Learning Entity Specific Models Stefan Niculescu Carnegie Mellon University November, 2003.
Academic Advisor: Prof. Ronen Brafman Team Members: Ran Isenberg Mirit Markovich Noa Aharon Alon Furman.
Automated Changes of Problem Representation Eugene Fink LTI Retreat 2007.
1RADAR – Scheduling Task © 2003 Carnegie Mellon University RADAR – Scheduling Task May 20, 2003 Manuela Veloso, Stephen Smith, Jaime Carbonell, Brett Browning,
Scalable Information-Driven Sensor Querying and Routing for ad hoc Heterogeneous Sensor Networks Maurice Chu, Horst Haussecker and Feng Zhao Xerox Palo.
Preference Elicitation in Scheduling Problems Ulaş Bardak Ph.D. Thesis Proposal Committee Jaime Carbonell, Eugene Fink, Stephen Smith, Sven Koenig (University.
1 Component Description CMU Note-Taker Tools Human Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University Prepared by: Bill Scherlis March 26, 1999.
Scheduling with uncertain resources: Representation and utility function Ulas Bardak, Eugene Fink, and Jaime Carbonell Reflective Agent with Distributed.
Maintaining and Updating Windows Server 2008
Installing software on personal computer
© 2014 Blackboard Inc. All rights reserved.. Describe the different tools that can be used to keep students informed. Announcements Course Messages.
Web Services (Part 1) Service-Oriented Architecture Overview ITEC 625 Web Development Fall 2006 Reference: Web Services and Service-Oriented Architectures.
Estimating Entropy for Data Streams Khanh Do Ba, Dartmouth College Advisor: S. Muthu Muthukrishnan.
Network Aware Resource Allocation in Distributed Clouds.
Using Meetings in Requirements Analysis Chapter 14.
Linking the World Through Learning 1 GEM – GDLN Event Management system GDLN Asia Pacific General Meeting, June 2007.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 Gathering Network Requirements Designing and Supporting Computer Networks – Chapter.
Multiagent System as an intelligent assistant tool in Sakai Diego del Blanco Orobitg Fernando Olivares Fernández UPA Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
Chapter 4 Realtime Widely Distributed Instrumention System.
Automated Assistant for Crisis Management Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning RADAR.
Participate in a Team to Achieve Organizational Goal
Synergy Meeting Scheduler System T-squared, S-cubed TJ Andrews Thriveni Movva Sadequa Azam Sama Malik Scott Denson.
HPN/HCS Update Mandy Fallon HCA Education and Research.
MURI: Integrated Fusion, Performance Prediction, and Sensor Management for Automatic Target Exploitation 1 Dynamic Sensor Resource Management for ATE MURI.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 Gathering Network Requirements Designing and Supporting Computer Networks – Chapter.
Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance An Interactive Decision Support Architecture for Visualizing Robust Solutions in High-Risk.
Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload and Beyond Intelligent Interfaces Presented by Maulik Oza Department of Information and Computer Science.
Lecture 1 – Operations Research
Distributed Models for Decision Support Jose Cuena & Sascha Ossowski Pesented by: Gal Moshitch & Rica Gonen.
1 RAPID: Representation and Analysis of Probabilistic Intelligence Data Carnegie Mellon University PI : Prof. Jaime G. Carbonell / / (412)
 An Information System (IS) is a collection of interrelated components that collect, process, store, and provide as output the information needed to.
1 Optimizing Decisions over the Long-term in the Presence of Uncertain Response Edward Kambour.
Elementary School Administration and Management GADS 671 Section 55 and 56.
RADAR May 5, RADAR /Space-Time Assistant: Crisis Allocation of Resources.
Unclassified//For Official Use Only 1 RAPID: Representation and Analysis of Probabilistic Intelligence Data Carnegie Mellon University PI : Prof. Jaime.
A Brief Maximum Entropy Tutorial Presenter: Davidson Date: 2009/02/04 Original Author: Adam Berger, 1996/07/05
Analysis of Uncertain Data: Tools for Representation and Processing Bin Fu Eugene Fink Jaime G. Carbonell.
Staff Assessment Technology Services Department Palmyra Area School District.
RADAR February 15, RADAR /Space-Time Learning.
Scheduling with Uncertain Resources Eugene Fink, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ulas Bardak, Alex Carpentier, Steven Gardiner, Andrew Faulring, Blaze Iliev, P. Matthew.
Urban Planning Group Implementation of a Model of Dynamic Activity- Travel Rescheduling Decisions: An Agent-Based Micro-Simulation Framework Theo Arentze,
HighImpactSoft 2010 Organizing a Better Future. Agenda Specify Goals ScopeDefinitions Process Model Preliminary Requirements Issues and solutions TraceabilityPrototype.
Reasoning under Uncertainty Eugene Fink LTI Seminar November 16, 2007.
Automated Assistant for Crisis Management (Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning) RADAR.
1PAL © 2003 Carnegie Mellon University Space: The final frontier Crisis space/resource allocation LTI/CSD: Jaime Carbonell, Scott Fahlman, Eugene Fink.
Telecom Unclassified Fault Prioritisation Telecom, Auckland 30 th October 2007 Telecom Wholesale Industry Consultation Seminar.
Outlook / Exchange Training. Outlook / Exchange: Agenda What Can Microsoft Exchange Do / How works at UST? and Inbox Mailbox Quota Archiving.
Maintaining and Updating Windows Server 2008 Lesson 8.
Scheduling with uncertain resources Collaboration with the user Eugene Fink, Ulaş Bardak, Brandon Rothrock, Jaime Carbonell Carnegie Mellon University.
Monitoreo y Administración de Infraestructura Fisica (DCIM). StruxureWare for Data Centers 2.0 Arturo Maqueo Business Development Data Centers LAM.
Jan 27, Digital Preservation Seminar1 Effective Page Refresh Policies for Web Crawlers Written By: Junghoo Cho & Hector Garcia-Molina Presenter:
Scheduling Cisco TelePresence Rooms
Maximum Expected Utility
2010 Organizing a Better Future
Thrust IC: Action Selection in Joint-Human-Robot Teams
RADAR/Space-Time: Allocation of Rooms and Vendor Orders
Information Elicitation in Scheduling Problems
Scheduling with uncertain resources Search for a near-optimal solution
Scheduling under Uncertainty
25Live Scheduling System Enhancements
Presentation transcript:

Scheduling with Uncertain Resources Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning RADAR

, but also under crisis conditions Help not only in routine situations Purpose Automation of office-management tasks, such as scheduling, handling, and resource allocation

Outline Overview of RADAR Resource-allocation system Optimization and elicitation Current and future challenges

PAL video Four-minute video: Military-setting motivation for RADAR (Carnegie Mellon) and CALO ( SRI ).

Challenges Intelligent performance of office-management tasks Collaboration with users Continuous learning of new knowledge and strategies

Main components Planning and coordination of high-level actions. Web Master Helps create and maintain web sites. Organizer Helps filter, sort, and prioritize messages. Calendar Manager Helps keep track of appointments and negotiate meeting times among multiple users. Briefing Assistant Helps compile reports based on multiple data sources. Resource Allocation

Outline Overview of RADAR Resource-allocation system Optimization and elicitation Current and future challenges

Purpose Automated allocation of rooms and related resources, in both routine and crisis situations. Assignment of offices Reservation of conference rooms Allocation of furniture, computers, and other office equipment

Year 1: Office allocation A prototype system for automated allocation of offices. Satisfying work-related needs of individual users and groups Maximizing user satisfaction

Year 1: Office allocation A prototype system for automated allocation of offices. Processing of natural-language requests Effective allocation of office resources Interface for a human administrator

Year 1: Office allocation Six-minute video Automated assignment of offices.

Years 2–3: Conference planning Scheduling of talks at a conference, and related allocation of rooms and equipment, in a crisis situation. Initial allocation plan Unexpected major change in space availability; for example, closing of a building Continuous stream of minor changes; for example, schedule changes and unforeseen equipment needs

Years 2–3: Conference planning Scheduling of talks at a conference, and related allocation of rooms and equipment, in a crisis situation. Temporal reasoning Uncertainty tolerance Information elicitation Collaboration with the human administrator

Years 2–3: Conference planning Demo: Semi-automated scheduling of conference events.

Outline Overview of RADAR Resource-allocation system Optimization and elicitation Current and future challenges

Architecture Info elicitorParserOptimizer Process new info Update resource allocation Choose and send questions Top-level control and learning Graphical user interface Administrator

Uncertainty The system allows uncertainty in the representation of all variables and functions in optimization problems. Uncertain nominals Uncertain integers Uncertain utility

Uncertain nominals An uncertain nominal value is either a complete unknown or a set of possible values and their probabilities. Example: We have ordered vegetarian meals, but there is a chance that we will receive meals of a wrong type. Meal-type: 0.90 chance: vegetarian 0.05 chance: regular 0.05 chance: vegan

Uncertain integers An uncertain integer is either a complete unknown or a probability-density function represented by a set of uniform distributions. Example: An auditorium has about 600 seats. Room-size: 0.2 chance: [ ] 0.6 chance: [ ] 0.2 chance: [ ] Proba- bility Room Size 0 0

Uncertain utilities An uncertain utility function may be represented in three ways. Complete unknown Piecewise-linear function with uncertain y-coordinates Room Size Quality Set of possible piecewise-linear functions and their probabilities 0.2 chance 0.8 chance

Main limitation We assume that all probability distributions are independent.

Optimization The optimization algorithm is based on randomized hill-climbing. At each step, reschedule one event Stop after finding a local maximum or reaching a time limit Search for a schedule with the greatest expected quality

Experiments Manual Auto rooms 62 events Manual Auto rooms 84 events without uncertainty with uncertainty 10 Search time Schedule Quality Time (seconds) 13 rooms 84 events Manual Auto rooms 32 events 0.80 Schedule Quality Manual and auto scheduling problem size

Information elicitation The system identifies critical missing knowledge, sends related questions to users, and improves the world model based on users’ answers.

Missing info: Invited talk: – Projector need Poster session: – Room size – Projector need Assumptions: Invited talk: – Needs a projector Poster session: – Small room is OK – Needs no projector Example: Initial schedule Available rooms: Room num. Area (feet 2 ) Proj- ector ,000 1,000 1,000 Yes No Yes Requests: Invited talk, 9–10am: Needs a large room Poster session, 9–11am: Needs a room Initial schedule: Talk Posters

Example: Choice of questions Initial schedule: Talk Posters Candidate questions: Invited talk: Needs a projector? Poster session: Needs a larger room? Needs a projector? Requests: Invited talk, 9–10am: Needs a large room Poster session, 9–11am: Needs a room Useless info: There are no large rooms w/o a projector × Useless info: There are no unoccupied larger rooms × Potentially useful info √

Example: Improved schedule Requests: Invited talk, 9–10am: Needs a large room Poster session, 9–11am: Needs a room Initial schedule: Talk Posters Info elicitation: System: Does the poster session need a projector? User: A projector may be useful, but not really necessary New schedule: Talk Posters

Choice of questions For each candidate question, estimate the probabilities of possible answers For each question, compute its expected impact on the schedule quality, and select questions with large expected impacts For each possible answer, compute the respective change of the schedule quality

Experiments We have applied the system to repair a schedule after a “crisis” loss of rooms. After Crisis 0.50 Manual Repair 0.61 Auto w/o Elicitation 0.68 Auto with Elicitation 0.72 Schedule Quality Manual and auto repair Schedule Quality Number of Questions Dependency of the quality on the number of questions

Outline Overview of RADAR Resource-allocation system Optimization and elicitation Current and future challenges

Main results Optimization based on uncertain knowledge of available resources and scheduling constraints Collaboration with the user Elicitation of additional information about resources and constraints

Current work Learning of typical requirements and default user preferences Learning of elicitation strategies Contingency scheduling

Learning of typical requirements The system analyzes known requirements and user preferences, and creates rules for generating default requirements. These rules enable the system to make reasonable assumptions about unknown requirements and preferences.

Learning of elicitation strategies The system analyzes old elicitation logs and creates rules for “static” generation of useful questions. These rules enable the system to ask critical questions before scheduling.

Contingency scheduling The system analyzes multiple possible scenarios and constructs different schedules for these scenarios. It thus reduces real-time re-scheduling required in crisis situations.

Learning of control rules for high-level planning and elicitation strategies Automated selection of reasoning and learning strategies from a library Future challenges