1. 1 Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz Rineke Verbrugge

2. 2 Formal theory of teamwork Formal characterization of motivational attitudes in BDI systems: static theory –intentions –commitments Attitudes are considered: –on three levels: individual, social, collective –in strictly cooperative teams Evolution of attitudes in dynamic and / or unpredictable environment: dynamic theory Static + dynamic theory = teamwork axioms

3. 3 Dynamics of teamwork Four stage model of teamwork: –potential recognition –team formation –plan formation –team action Reconfiguration algorithm

4. 4 Collective attitudes Collective commitment obeys: –collective intention to  within the team –correct plan P leading to  –collective awareness of correctness of P –social commitments for all actions in P –global collective awareness about existence of social commitments

5. 5 Collective attitudes Collective intention Collective commitment: –C-COMM G,P (  )  C-INT G (  )  constitute( , P)  C-BEL G (constitute( , P))  /\   P \/ i,j  G COMM(i, j,  )  C-BEL G ( /\   P \/ i,j  G COMM(i, j,  ))

6. 6 The four levels of teamwork Plan generation: –input: a group G with collective intention C-INT G (  ) – three-step process: task division means-end analysis action allocation

7. 7 The four levels of teamwork Plan generation, overall process: –realized by the sequence of actions div;means;all –successful performance: succ( div ( ,  ) ;means ( ,  ) ;all ( , P))  constitute( , P)

8. 8 The four levels of teamwork Plan generation, establishing collective commitment: –dial – dialogue used to establish collective commitment –C-INT G (  )  constitute( , P)  succ( dial ( , G, P))  C-COMM G,P (  )

9. 9 The four levels of CPS Plan generation, a frame axiom: –succ( div ( ,  ) ;means ( ,  ) ; all ( , P) ;dial ( , G, P))  div( ,  )  means( ,  )  all( , P)

10. 10 The four levels of teamwork Team action: –execution of actions according to C-COMM G,P (  ) –maintenance of social commitments and individual intentions, –requires reconfiguration process.

11. 11 Commitments during reconfiguration Maintaining collective intention in changing environment requires reconfiguration and leads to the evolution of collective commitment. Reconfiguration algorithm deals with failures of action execution. It is divided in a number of cases.

12. 12 Case 1: team action succeeds In sequel, all properties are proved for all Kripke models M in which teamwork axioms hold, and all worlds w Case 1: all actions from the social plan P succeed –M,w ╞═ C-COMM G,P (  )  [ conf (succ(P))]  –leads to system-success

13. 13 Case 2: an action failed C-COMM G,P (  ) has to be dropped Situation is not a priori hopeless, depending on possibilities of action reallocation and planning

14. 14 Case 2: team action failed, subcases –a new action allocation succeeds (2a), or –a new action allocation fails, and a failed action blocks achieving the goal (2b), or no failed action blocks achieving the goal, and –a new means-end analysis and action allocation succeeds (2c), or –new means-end analysis and action allocation fails, and »a new task division, means-end analysis and action allocation succeeds (2d), or »a new task division, means-end analysis and action allocation fails: back to team formation.

15. 15 Case 2a: reallocation possible If: –some actions failed but –none of them failed for an objective reason –reallocation of these actions is possible Then: –a new collective commitment can be established based on a new plan P ’

16. 16 Case 2a: reallocation possible M,w ╞═ C-INT G (  )  div( ,  )  means( ,  )  [ conf (succ( all ( , P ’) ;dial ( , G, P ’)))] C-COMM G,P ’ (  ) –  - current action sequence –P ’ - a new social plan

17. 17 Case 2b: some failed action blocks the main goal If: –at least one action necessary for achievement of the goal failed for an objective reason –no agent will succeed in executing this action Then: –this leads to system-failure

18. 18 Case 2c: new means-end analysis possible If: –some actions failed –action reallocation is not possible –none of failed actions blocks the goal –a new means-end analysis is possible Then: –a new collective commitment can be established based on new plan P ’

19. 19 Case 2c: new means-end analysis possible for current goal sequence  and action sequence  and for every social plan P’, there are  ’ and P ’’ such that: M,w ╞═ C-INT G (  )  div( ,  )  [ conf (failed( all ( , P ’))] [ conf (succ( means ( ,  ’) ;all (  ’, P ’’) ; dial ( , G, P ’’)))] C-COMM G,P ’’ (  )

20. 20 Case 2d: new task division possible If: –some actions failed –neither action reallocation nor new means-end analysis is possible –none of failed actions blocks the goal –a new task division is possible Then: –a new collective commitment can be established based on new plan P ’’

21. 21 Case 2d: new task division possible for current goal sequence  and action sequence  and for every social plan P ’ and action sequence  ’, there are  ’,  ’’ and P ’’ such that: C-INT G (  )  [ conf (failed( all ( , P ’))] [ conf (failed( means ( ,  ’))] [ conf (succ( div ( ,  ’) ;means (  ’,  ’’) ; all (  ’’, P ’’) ;dial ( , G, P ’’)))] C-COMM G,P ’’ (  )

22. 22 Conclusions Teamwork axioms: –constitute a definition of motivational attitudes in BDI systems: static part –constitute a specification of their evolution in a dynamic environment: dynamic part –may serve the system developer as a high level specification of the system High level of idealization: solely strictly cooperative teams are considered

23. 23 Future work To relax strong assumptions put on cooperative problem solving To investigate weaker and more distributed forms of cooperation To investigate non-normal multi-modal framework in order to prevent logical omniscience and side-effect problems