FMAP: Distributed Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning

This paper proposes FMAP (Forward Multi-Agent Planning), a fully-distributed multi-agent planning method that integrates planning and coordination. Although FMAP is specifically aimed at solving problems that require cooperation among agents, the flexibility of the domain-independent planning model allows FMAP to tackle multi-agent planning tasks of any type. In FMAP, agents jointly explore the plan space by building up refinement plans through a complete and flexible forward-chaining partial-order planner. The search is guided by h D T G , a novel heuristic function that is based on the concepts of Domain Transition Graph and frontier state and is optimized to evaluate plans in distributed environments. Agents in FMAP apply an advanced privacy model that allows them to adequately keep private information while communicating only the data of the refinement plans that is relevant to each of the participating agents. Experimental results show that FMAP is a general-purpose approach that efficiently solves tightly-coupled domains that have specialized agents and cooperative goals as well as loosely-coupled problems. Specifically, the empirical evaluation shows that FMAP outperforms current MAP systems at solving complex planning tasks that are adapted from the International Planning Competition benchmarks.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, the Valencian Prometeo project II/2013/019, and the FPI-UPV scholarship granted to the first author by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Torreño Lerma, A.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O. (2014). FMAP: Distributed Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning. Applied Intelligence. 41(2):606-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0540-2S606626412Benton J, Coles A, Coles A (2012) Temporal planning with preferences and time-dependent continuous costs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 2–10Borrajo D. (2013) Multi-agent planning by plan reuse. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, pp 1141–1142Boutilier C, Brafman R (2001) Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. J Artif Intell Res 14(105):136Brafman R, Domshlak C (2008) From one to many: planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 28–35Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiagent Syst 19(3):297–331Bresina J, Dearden R, Meuleau N, Ramakrishnan S, Smith D, Washington R (2002) Planning under continuous time and resource uncertainty: a challenge for AI. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 77–84Cox J, Durfee E (2009) Efficient and distributable methods for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. Multiagent Grid Syst 5(4):373–408Crosby M, Rovatsos M, Petrick R (2013) Automated agent decomposition for classical planning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 46–54Dimopoulos Y, Hashmi MA, Moraitis P (2012) μ-satplan: Multi-agent planning as satisfiability. Knowl-Based Syst 29:54–62Fikes R, Nilsson N (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Gerevini A, Haslum P, Long D, Saetti A, Dimopoulos Y (2009) Deterministic planning in the fifth international planning competition: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners. Artif Intell 173(5-6):619–668Ghallab M, Nau D, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning. Theory and practice. Morgan KaufmannGünay A, Yolum P (2013) Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments. Appl Intell 39(3):489–509Helmert M (2004) A planning heuristic based on causal graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on automated planning and scheduling ICAPS. AAAI, pp 161–170Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast planning generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302Jannach D, Zanker M (2013) Modeling and solving distributed configuration problems: a CSP-based approach. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25(3):603–618Jonsson A, Rovatsos M (2011) Scaling up multiagent planning: a best-response approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 114–121Kala R, Warwick K (2014) Dynamic distributed lanes: motion planning for multiple autonomous vehicles. Appl Intell:1–22Koehler J, Ottiger D (2002) An AI-based approach to destination control in elevators. AI Mag 23(3):59–78Kovacs DL (2011) Complete BNF description of PDDL3.1. Technical reportvan der Krogt R (2009) Quantifying privacy in multiagent planning. Multiagent Grid Syst 5(4):451–469Kvarnström J (2011) Planning for loosely coupled agents using partial order forward-chaining. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 138–145Lesser V, Decker K, Wagner T, Carver N, Garvey A, Horling B, Neiman D, Podorozhny R, Prasad M, Raja A et al (2004) Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 9(1–2):87–143Long D, Fox M (2003) The 3rd international planning competition: results and analysis. J Artif Intell Res 20:1–59Nissim R, Brafman R, Domshlak C (2010) A general, fully distributed multi-agent planning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, pp 1323–1330O’Brien P, Nicol R (1998) FIPA - towards a standard for software agents. BT Tech J 16(3):51–59Öztürk P, Rossland K, Gundersen O (2010) A multiagent framework for coordinated parallel problem solving. Appl Intell 33(2):132–143Pal A, Tiwari R, Shukla A (2013) Communication constraints multi-agent territory exploration task. Appl Intell 38(3):357–383Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177de la Rosa T, García-Olaya A, Borrajo D (2013) A case-based approach to heuristic planning. Appl Intell 39(1):184–201Sapena O, Onaindia E (2008) Planning in highly dynamic environments: an anytime approach for planning under time constraints. Appl Intell 29(1):90–109Sapena O, Onaindia E, Garrido A, Arangú M (2008) A distributed CSP approach for collaborative planning systems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 21(5):698–709Serrano E, Such J, Botía J, García-Fornes A (2013) Strategies for avoiding preference profiling in agent-based e-commerce environments. Appl Intell:1–16Smith D, Frank J, Jónsson A (2000) Bridging the gap between planning and scheduling. Knowl Eng Rev 15(1):47–83Such J, García-Fornes A, Espinosa A, Bellver J (2012) Magentix2: a privacy-enhancing agent platform. Eng Appl Artif Intell:96–109Tonino H, Bos A, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2002) Plan coordination by revision in collective agent based systems. Artif Intell 142(2):121–145Torreño A, Onaindia E, Sapena O (2012) An approach to multi-agent planning with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), vol 242. IOS Press, pp 762–767Torreño A, Onaindia E, Sapena O (2014) A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowl Inf Syst 38(1):141–178Van Der Krogt R, De Weerdt M (2005) Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 161–170de Weerdt M, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiagent Grid Syst 5(4):345– 355Yokoo M, Durfee E, Ishida T, Kuwabara K (1998) The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: formalization and algorithms. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 10(5):673–685Zhang J, Nguyen X, Kowalczyk R (2007) Graph-based multi-agent replanning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, pp 798–80

A survey of agent-oriented methodologies

This article introduces the current agent-oriented methodologies. It discusses what approaches have been followed (mainly extending existing object oriented and knowledge engineering methodologies), the suitability of these approaches for agent modelling, and some conclusions drawn from the survey

A new model for solution of complex distributed constrained problems

In this paper we describe an original computational model for solving different types of Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems (DCSP). The proposed model is called Controller-Agents for Constraints Solving (CACS). This model is intended to be used which is an emerged field from the integration between two paradigms of different nature: Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) and the Constraint Satisfaction Problem paradigm (CSP) where all constraints are treated in central manner as a black-box. This model allows grouping constraints to form a subset that will be treated together as a local problem inside the controller. Using this model allows also handling non-binary constraints easily and directly so that no translating of constraints into binary ones is needed. This paper presents the implementation outlines of a prototype of DCSP solver, its usage methodology and overview of the CACS application for timetabling problems

On Agent-Based Software Engineering

Agent-based computing represents an exciting new synthesis both for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, more generally, Computer Science. It has the potential to significantly improve the theory and the practice of modeling, designing, and implementing computer systems. Yet, to date, there has been little systematic analysis of what makes the agent-based approach such an appealing and powerful computational model. Moreover, even less effort has been devoted to discussing the inherent disadvantages that stem from adopting an agent-oriented view. Here both sets of issues are explored. The standpoint of this analysis is the role of agent-based software in solving complex, real-world problems. In particular, it will be argued that the development of robust and scalable software systems requires autonomous agents that can complete their objectives while situated in a dynamic and uncertain environment, that can engage in rich, high-level social interactions, and that can operate within flexible organisational structures

Intrinsically Motivated Goal Exploration Processes with Automatic Curriculum Learning

Intrinsically motivated spontaneous exploration is a key enabler of autonomous lifelong learning in human children. It enables the discovery and acquisition of large repertoires of skills through self-generation, self-selection, self-ordering and self-experimentation of learning goals. We present an algorithmic approach called Intrinsically Motivated Goal Exploration Processes (IMGEP) to enable similar properties of autonomous or self-supervised learning in machines. The IMGEP algorithmic architecture relies on several principles: 1) self-generation of goals, generalized as fitness functions; 2) selection of goals based on intrinsic rewards; 3) exploration with incremental goal-parameterized policy search and exploitation of the gathered data with a batch learning algorithm; 4) systematic reuse of information acquired when targeting a goal for improving towards other goals. We present a particularly efficient form of IMGEP, called Modular Population-Based IMGEP, that uses a population-based policy and an object-centered modularity in goals and mutations. We provide several implementations of this architecture and demonstrate their ability to automatically generate a learning curriculum within several experimental setups including a real humanoid robot that can explore multiple spaces of goals with several hundred continuous dimensions. While no particular target goal is provided to the system, this curriculum allows the discovery of skills that act as stepping stone for learning more complex skills, e.g. nested tool use. We show that learning diverse spaces of goals with intrinsic motivations is more efficient for learning complex skills than only trying to directly learn these complex skills