NASA Lunar Regolith Simulant Program

Lunar regolith simulant production is absolutely critical to returning man to the Moon. Regolith simulant is used to test hardware exposed to the lunar surface environment, simulate health risks to astronauts, practice in situ resource utilization (ISRU) techniques, and evaluate dust mitigation strategies. Lunar regolith simulant design, production process, and management is a cooperative venture between members of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The MSFC simulant team is a satellite of the Dust group based at Glenn Research Center. The goals of the cooperative group are to (1) reproduce characteristics of lunar regolith using simulants, (2) produce simulants as cheaply as possible, (3) produce simulants in the amount needed, and (4) produce simulants to meet users? schedules

Development of Lunar Highland REgolith Simulants, NU-LHT-1M,-2M

As part of a collaborative agreement between the U.S, Geological Survey (USGS) and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) lunar highland simulants are being produced to support engineers and scientists in developing the technologies required to put a base on the moon by 2024. Two simulants have been produced to date: NU-LHT-1M and -2M (NASA/USGS-Lunar Highlands Type-l & 2 Medium-grained). Using starting material chiefly collected from the Stillwater Mine, Nye, MT, blending protocols were developed based on normative mineralogy calculated from average chemistry, for the Apollo 16 regolith. New technologies using a high temperature remotely coupled plasma melter were developed to generate both high quality and agglutinitic glasses that simulate the glassy components of the regolith. Detailed chemical, mineralogical and physical properties analysis of NU-LHT-1M indicate that it is overall a good surrogate for highlands lunar regolith (our new simulant LHT-2M has not be analyzed yet). The primary difference between 1M and 2M was the inclusion of trace mineralogy (phosphates and sulfide). Plans will also be presented on the future direction of the simulant project

Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide

Based on primary characteristics, currently or recently available lunar regolith simulants are discussed from the perspective of potential experimental uses. The characteristics used are inherent properties of the material rather than their responses to behavioral (geomechanical, physiochemical, etc.) tests. We define these inherent or primary properties to be particle composition, particle size distribution, particle shape distribution, and bulk density. Comparable information about lunar materials is also provided. It is strongly emphasized that anyone considering either choosing or using a simulant should contact one of the members of the simulant program listed at the end of this document

From Lunar Regolith to Fabricated Parts: Technology Developments and the Utilization of Moon Dirt

The U.S. Space Exploration Policy has as a cornerstone the establishment of an outpost on the moon. This lunar outpost wil1 eventually provide the necessary planning, technology development, testbed, and training for manned missions in the future beyond the Moon. As part of the overall activity, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is investigating how the in situ resources can be utilized to improve mission success by reducing up-mass, improving safety, reducing risk, and bringing down costs for the overall mission. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), along with other NASA centers, is supporting this endeavor by exploring how lunar regolith can be mined for uses such as construction, life support, propulsion, power, and fabrication. An infrastructure capable of fabrication and nondestructive evaluation will be needed to support habitat structure development and maintenance, tools and mechanical parts fabrication, as well as repair and replacement of space-mission hardware such as life-support items, vehicle components, and crew systems, This infrastructure will utilize the technologies being developed under the In Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFR) element, which is working in conjunction with the technologies being developed under the In Situ Resources Utilization (ISRU) element, to live off the land. The ISFR Element supports the Space Exploration Initiative by reducing downtime due to failed components; decreasing risk to crew by recovering quickly from degraded operation of equipment; improving system functionality with advanced geometry capabilities; and enhancing mission safety by reducing assembly part counts of original designs where possible. This paper addresses the need and plan for understanding the properties of the lunar regolith to determine the applicability of using this material in a fabrication process. This effort includes the development of high fidelity simulants that will be used in fabrication processes on the ground to drive down risk and increase the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) prior to implementing this capability on the moon. Also discussed in this paper is the on-going research using Electron Beam Melting (EBM) technology as a possible solution to manufacturing parts and spares on the Moon's surface

Active transport of maltose in membrane vesicles obtained from Escherichia coli cells producing tethered maltose-binding protein.

Attempts to reconstitute periplasmic binding protein-dependent transport activity in membrane vesicles have often resulted in systems with poor and rather inconsistent activity, possibly because of the need to add a large excess of purified binding protein to the vesicles. We circumvented this difficulty by using a mutant which produces a precursor maltose-binding protein that is translocated across the cytoplasmic membrane but is not cleaved by the signal peptidase (J. D. Fikes and P. J. Bassford, Jr., J. Bacteriol. 169:2352-2359, 1987). The protein remains tethered to the cytoplasmic membrane, presumably through the hydrophobic signal sequence, and we show here that the spheroplasts and membrane vesicles prepared from this mutant catalyze active maltose transport without the addition of purified maltose-binding protein. In vesicles, the transport requires electron donors, such as ascorbate and phenazine methosulfate or D-lactate. However, inhibition by dicyclohexylcarbodiimide and stimulation of transport by the inculsion of ADP or ATP in the intravesicular space suggest that ATP (or compounds derived from it) is involved in the energization of the transport. The transport activity of intact cells can be recovered without much inactivation in the vesicles, and their high activity and ease of preparation will be useful in studies of the mechanism of the binding protein-dependent transport process

Controlling Narrative Generation with Planning Trajectories: The Role of Constraints

Abstract. AI planning has featured in a number of Interactive Storytelling prototypes: since narratives can be naturally modelled as a sequence of actions it has been possible to exploit state of the art planners in the task of narrative generation. However the characteristics of a “good ” plan, such as optimality, aren’t necessarily the same as those of a “good ” narrative, where errors and convoluted sequences may offer more reader interest, so some narrative structuring is required. In our work we have looked at injecting narrative control into plan generation through the use of PDDL3.0 state trajectory constraints which enable us to express narrative control information within the planning representation. As part of this we have developed an approach to planning with such trajectory constraints. The approach decomposes the problem into a set of smaller subproblems using the temporal orderings described by the constraints and then solves these subproblems incrementally. In this paper we outline our method and present results that illustrate the potential of the approach.

Comparison of Autoclave and Out-of-Autoclave Composites

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate initiated an Advanced Composite Technology Project through the Exploration Technology Development Program in order to support the polymer composite needs for future heavy lift launch architectures. As an example, the large composite dry structural applications on Ares V inspired the evaluation of autoclave and out-of-autoclave (OOA) composite materials. A NASA and industry team selected the most appropriate materials based on component requirements for a heavy lift launch vehicle. Autoclaved and OOA composites were fabricated and results will highlight differences in processing conditions, laminate quality, as well as initial room temperature thermal and mechanical performance. Results from this study compare solid laminates that were both fiber-placed and hand-laid. Due to the large size of heavy-lift launch vehicle composite structures, there is significant potential that the uncured composite material or prepreg will experience significant out-life during component fabrication. Therefore, prepreg out-life was a critical factor examined in this comparison. In order to rigorously test material suppliers recommended out-life, the NASA/Industry team extended the out-time of the uncured composite prepreg to values that were approximately 50% beyond the manufacturers out-time limits. Early results indicate that the OOA prepreg composite materials suffered in both composite quality and mechanical property performance from their extended out-time. However, the OOA materials performed similarly to the autoclaved composites when processed within a few days of exposure to ambient "shop" floor handling. Follow on studies evaluating autoclave and OOA aluminum honeycomb core sandwich composites are planned

Petri Net Plans A framework for collaboration and coordination in multi-robot systems

Programming the behavior of multi-robot systems is a challenging task which has a key role in developing effective systems in many application domains. In this paper, we present Petri Net Plans (PNPs), a language based on Petri Nets (PNs), which allows for intuitive and effective robot and multi-robot behavior design. PNPs are very expressive and support a rich set of features that are critical to develop robotic applications, including sensing, interrupts and concurrency. As a central feature, PNPs allow for a formal analysis of plans based on standard PN tools. Moreover, PNPs are suitable for modeling multi-robot systems and the developed behaviors can be executed in a distributed setting, while preserving the properties of the modeled system. PNPs have been deployed in several robotic platforms in different application domains. In this paper, we report three case studies, which address complex single robot plans, coordination and collaboration

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 flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7Multi-agent planning (MAP) approaches are typically oriented at solving loosely coupled problems, being ineffective to deal with more complex, strongly related problems. In most cases, agents work under complete information, building complete knowledge bases. The present article introduces a general-purpose MAP framework designed to tackle problems of any coupling levels under incomplete information. Agents in our MAP model are partially unaware of the information managed by the rest of agents and share only the critical information that affects other agents, thus maintaining a distributed vision of the task. Agents solve MAP tasks through the adoption of an iterative refinement planning procedure that uses single-agent planning technology. In particular, agents will devise refinements through the partial-order planning paradigm, a flexible framework to build refinement plans leaving unsolved details that will be gradually completed by means of new refinements. Our proposal is supported with the implementation of a fully operative MAP system and we show various experiments when running our system over different types of MAP problems, from the most strongly related to the most loosely coupled.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051.Torreño Lerma, A.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O. (2014). A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38:141-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7S14117838Argente E, Botti V, Carrascosa C, Giret A, Julian V, Rebollo M (2011) An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the THOMAS approach. Knowl Inf Syst 29(2):379–403Barrett A, Weld DS (1994) Partial-order planning: evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artif Intell 67(1):71–112Belesiotis A, Rovatsos M, Rahwan I (2010) Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 765–772Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2001) JADE: a FIPA2000 compliant agent development environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AAMAS). ACM, pp 216–217Blum A, Furst ML (1997) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif Intell 90(1–2):281–300Boutilier 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). pp 28–35Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiag Syst 19(3):297–331Coles A, Coles A, Fox M, Long D (2010) Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 42–49Coles A, Fox M, Long D, Smith A (2008) Teaching forward-chaining planning with JavaFF. In: Colloquium on AI education, 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceCox J, Durfee E, Bartold T (2005) A distributed framework for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 821–827de Weerdt M, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiag Grid Syst 5(4):345–355Decker K, Lesser VR (1992) Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int J Coop Inf Syst 2(2):319–346desJardins M, Durfee E, Ortiz C, Wolverton M (1999) A survey of research in distributed continual planning. AI Mag 20(4):13–22Doshi P (2007) On the role of interactive epistemology in multiagent planning. In: Artificial intelligence and, pattern recognition. pp 208–213Dréo J, Savéant P, Schoenauer M, Vidal V (2011) Divide-and-evolve: the marriage of descartes and darwin. In: Proceedings of the 7th international planning competition (IPC). Freiburg, GermanyDurfee EH (2001) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Multi-agents systems and applications: selected tutorial papers from the 9th ECCAI advanced course (ACAI) and agentLink’s third European agent systems summer school (EASSS), vol LNAI 2086. Springer, pp 118–149Durfee EH, Lesser V (1991) Partial global planning: a coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Special Issue Distrib Sens Netw 21(5):1167–1183Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1996) Deriving consensus in multiagent systems. Artif Intell 87(1–2):21–74Fikes R, Nilsson N (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Fogués R, Alberola J, Such J, Espinosa A, Garcia-Fornes A (2010) Towards dynamic agent interaction support in open multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on artificial intelligence research and development: proceedings of the 13th international conference of the Catalan association for artificial intelligence’. IOS Press, pp 89–98Gerevini A, Long D (2006) Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL3. In: ICAPS workshop on planning with preferences and soft constraints, vol 6. Citeseer, pp 46–53Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL-the Planning Domain Definition Language. In: AIPS-98 planning committeeGmytrasiewicz P, Doshi P (2005) A framework for sequential planning in multi-agent settings. J Artif Intell Res 24:49–79Haslum P, Jonsson P (1999) Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on, planning (ECP). pp 308–318Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26(1):191–246Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast planning generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302Jonsson 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 114–121Kambhampati S (1997) Refinement planning as a unifying framework for plan synthesis. AI Mag 18(2):67–97Kaminka GA, Pynadath DV, Tambe M (2002) Monitoring teams by overhearing: a multi-agent plan-recognition approach. J Artif Intell Res 17:83–135Kone M, Shimazu A, Nakajima T (2000) The state of the art in agent communication languages. Knowl Inf Syst 2(3):259–284Kovacs DL (2011) Complete BNF description of PDDL3.1. Technical reportKraus S (1997) Beliefs, time and incomplete information in multiple encounter negotiations among autonomous agents. Ann Math Artif Intell 20(1–4):111–159Kumar A, Zilberstein S, Toussaint M (2011) Scalable multiagent planning using probabilistic inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)’. Barcelona, Spain, pp 2140–2146Kvarnström 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):87–143Lipovetzky N, Geffner H (2011) Searching for plans with carefully designed probes. In: Proceedings of the 21th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS)Micacchi C, Cohen R (2008) A framework for simulating real-time multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 17(2):135–166Nguyen N, Katarzyniak R (2009) Actions and social interactions in multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2):133–136Nguyen X, Kambhampati S (2001) Reviving partial order planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 459–464Nissim 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). pp 1323–1330Pajares S, Onaindia E (2012) Defeasible argumentation for multi-agent planning in ambient intelligence applications. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) pp 509–516Paolucci M, Shehory O, Sycara K, Kalp D, Pannu A (2000) A planning component for RETSINA agents. Intelligent Agents VI. Agent Theories Architectures, and Languages pp 147–161Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3):261Penberthy J, Weld D (1992) UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 103–114Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177Sycara K, Pannu A (1998) The RETSINA multiagent system (video session): towards integrating planning, execution and information gathering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents (Agents). ACM, pp 350–351Tambe M (1997) Towards flexible teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124Tang Y, Norman T, Parsons S (2010) A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. Argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp 60–78Tonino H, Bos A, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2002) Plan coordination by revision in collective agent based systems. Artif Intell 142(2):121–145Van 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). pp 161–170Weld D (1994) An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Mag 15(4):27Weld D (1999) Recent advances in AI planning. AI Mag 20(2):93–123Wilkins D, Myers K (1998) A multiagent planning architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence planning systems (AIPS), pp 154–162Wu F, Zilberstein S, Chen X (2011) Online planning for multi-agent systems with bounded communication. Artif Intell 175(2):487–511Younes H, Simmons R (2003) VHPOP: versatile heuristic partial order planner. J Artif Intell Res 20: 405–430Zhang J, Nguyen X, Kowalczyk R (2007) Graph-based multi-agent replanning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS