Determining the Value of Information for Collaborative Multi-Agent Planning

This paper addresses the problem of computing the value of information in settings in which the people using an autonomous-agent system have access to information not directly available to the system itself. To know whether to interrupt a user for this information, the agent needs to determine its value. The fact that the agent typically does not know the exact information the user has and so must evaluate several alternative possibilities significantly increases the complexity of the value-of-information calculation. The paper addresses this problem as it arises in multi-agent task planning and scheduling with architectures in which information about the task schedule resides in a separate “scheduler” module. For such systems, calculating the value to overall agent performance of potential new information requires that the system component that interacts with the user query the scheduler. The cost of this querying and inter-module communication itself substantially affects system performance and must be taken into account. The paper provides a decision-theoretic algorithm for determining the value of information the system might acquire, query-reduction methods that decrease the number of queries the algorithm makes to the scheduler, and methods for ordering the queries to enable faster decision-making. These methods were evaluated in the context of a collaborative interface for an automated scheduling agent. Experimental results demonstrate the significant decrease achieved by using the query-reduction methods in the number of queries needed for reasoning about the value of information. They also show the ordering methods substantially increase the rate of value accumulation, enabling faster determination of whether to interrupt the user.Engineering and Applied Science

Incorporating Helpful Behavior into Collaborative Planning

This paper considers the design of agent strategies for deciding whether to help other members of a group with whom an agent is engaged in a collaborative activity. Three characteristics of collaborative planning must be addressed by these decision-making strategies: agents may have only partial information about their partners' plans for sub-tasks of the collaborative activity; the effectiveness of helping may not be known a priori; and, helping actions have some associated cost. The paper proposes a novel probabilistic representation of other agents' beliefs about the recipes selected for their own or for the group activity, given partial information. This representation is compact, and thus makes reasoning about helpful behavior tractable. The paper presents a decision-theoretic mechanism that uses this representation to make decisions about two kinds of helpful actions: communicating information relevant to a partner's plans for some sub-action, and adding domain actions that are helpful to other agent(s) into the collaborative plan. This mechanism includes a set of rules for reasoning about the utility of helpful actions and the cost incurred by doing them. It was tested using a multi-agent test-bed with configurations that varied agents' uncertainty about the world, their uncertainty about each others' capabilities or resources, and the cost of helpful behavior. In all cases, agents using the decision-theoretic mechanism to decide whether to help outperformed agents using purely axiomatic rules.Engineering and Applied Science

Problem restructuring for better decision making in recurring decision situations

This paper proposes the use of restructuring information about choices to improve the performance of computer agents on recurring sequentially dependent decisions. The intended situations of use for the restructuring methods it defines are website platforms such as electronic marketplaces in which agents typically engage in sequentially dependent decisions. With the proposed methods, such platforms can improve agents’ experience, thus attracting more customers to their sites. In sequentially-dependent-decisions settings, decisions made at one time may affect decisions made later; hence, the best choice at any point depends not only on the options at that point, but also on future conditions and the decisions made in them. This “problem restructuring” approach was tested on sequential economic search, which is a common type of recurring sequentially dependent decision-making problem that arises in a broad range of areas. The paper introduces four heuristics for restructuring the choices that are available to decision makers in economic search applications. Three of these heuristics are based on characteristics of the choices, not of the decision maker. The fourth heuristic requires information about a decision-makers prior decision-making, which it uses to classify the decision-maker. The classification type is used to choose the best of the three other heuristics. The heuristics were extensively tested on a large number of agents designed by different people with skills similar to those of a typical agent developer. The results demonstrate that the problem-restructuring approach is a promising one for improving the performance of agents on sequentially dependent decisions. Although there was a minor degradation in performance for a small portion of the agents, the overall and average individual performance improved substantially. Complementary experimentation with people demonstrated that the methods carry over, to some extent, also to human decision makers. Interestingly, the heuristic that adapts based on a decision-maker’s history achieved the best results for computer agents, but not for people.Engineering and Applied Science

Modeling Information Exchange Opportunities for Effective Human-Computer Teamwork

This paper studies information exchange in collaborative group activities involving mixed networks of people and computer agents. It introduces the concept of "nearly decomposable" decision-making problems to address the complexity of information exchange decisions in such multi-agent settings. This class of decision-making problems arise in settings which have an action structure that requires agents to reason about only a subset of their partners' actions – but otherwise allows them to act independently. The paper presents a formal model of nearly decomposable decision-making problems, NED-MDPs, and defines an approximation algorithm, NED-DECOP that computes efficient information exchange strategies. The paper shows that NED-DECOP is more efficient than prior collaborative planning algorithms for this class of problem. It presents an empirical study of the information exchange decisions made by the algorithm that investigates the extent to which people accept interruption requests from a computer agent. The context for the study is a game in which the agent can ask people for information that may benefit its individual performance and thus the groupʼs collaboration. This study revealed the key factors affecting peopleʼs perception of the benefit of interruptions in this setting. The paper also describes the use of machine learning to predict the situations in which people deviate from the strategies generated by the algorithm, using a combination of domain features and features informed by the algorithm. The methodology followed in this work could form the basis for designing agents that effectively exchange information in collaborations with people.Engineering and Applied Science

Modeling User Perception of Interaction Opportunities for Effective Teamwork

This paper presents a model of collaborative decision-making for groups that involve people and computer agents. The model distinguishes between actions relating to participantspsila commitment to the group and actions relating to their individual tasks, uses this distinction to decompose group decision making into smaller problems that can be solved efficiently. It allows computer agents to reason about the benefits of their actions on a collaboration and the ways in which human participants perceive these benefits. The model was tested in a setting in which computer agents need to decide whether to interrupt people to obtain potentially valuable information. Results show that the magnitude of the benefit of interruption to the collaboration is a major factor influencing the likelihood that people will accept interruption requests. They further establish that peoplepsilas perceived type of their partners (whether humans or computers) significantly affected their perceptions of the usefulness of interruptions when the benefit of the interruption is not clear-cut. These results imply that system designers need to consider not only the possible benefits of interruptions to collaborative human-computer teams but also the way that such benefits are perceived by people.Engineering and Applied Science

Evaluating Centering for Information Ordering Using Corpora

In this article we discuss several metrics of coherence defined using centering theory and investigate the usefulness of such metrics for information ordering in automatic text generation. We estimate empirically which is the most promising metric and how useful this metric is using a general methodology applied on several corpora. Our main result is that the simplest metric (which relies exclusively on NOCB transitions) sets a robust baseline that cannot be outperformed by other metrics which make use of additional centering-based features. This baseline can be used for the development of both text-to-text and concept-to-text generation systems. </jats:p

Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Coherence of Discourse

Our original paper (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein, 1983) on centering claimed that certain entities mentioned in an utterance were more central than others and that this property imposed constraints on a speaker\u27s use of different types of referring expression. Centering was proposed as a model that accounted for this phenomenon. We argued that the compatibility of centering properties of an utterance with choice of referring expression affected the coherence of discourse. Subsequently, we expanded the ideas presented therein. We defined various centering constructs and proposed two centering rules in terms of these constructs. A draft manuscript describing this elaborated centering framework and presenting some initial theoretical claims has been in wide circulation since 1986. This draft (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1986, hereafter, GJW86) has led to a number of papers by others on this topic and has been extensively cited, but has never been published. We have been urged to publish the more detailed description of the centering framework and theory proposed in GJW86 so that an official version would be archivally available. The task of completing and revising this draft became more daunting as time passed and more and more papers appeared on centering. Many of these papers proposed extensions to or revisions of the theory and attempted to answer questions posed in GJW86. It has become ever more clear that it would be useful to have a definitive statement of the original motivations for centering, the basic definitions underlying the centering framework, and the original theoretical claims. This paper attempts to meet that need. To accomplish this goal, we have chosen to remove descriptions of many open research questions posed in GJW86 as well as solutions that were only partially developed. We have also greatly shortened the discussion of criteria for and constraints on a possible semantic theory as a foundation for this work

Agent Decision-Making in Open Mixed Networks

Computer systems increasingly carry out tasks in mixed networks, that is in group settings in which they interact both with other computer systems and with people. Participants in these heterogeneous human-computer groups vary in their capabilities, goals, and strategies; they may cooperate, collaborate, or compete. The presence of people in mixed networks raises challenges for the design and the evaluation of decision-making strategies for computer agents. This paper describes several new decision-making models that represent, learn and adapt to various social attributes that influence people's decision-making and presents a novel approach to evaluating such models. It identifies a range of social attributes in an open-network setting that influence people's decision-making and thus affect the performance of computer-agent strategies, and establishes the importance of learning and adaptation to the success of such strategies. The settings vary in the capabilities, goals, and strategies that people bring into their interactions. The studies deploy a configurable system called Colored Trails (CT) that generates a family of games. CT is an abstract, conceptually simple but highly versatile game in which players negotiate and exchange resources to enable them to achieve their individual or group goals. It provides a realistic analogue to multi-agent task domains, while not requiring extensive domain modeling. It is less abstract than payoff matrices, and people exhibit less strategic and more helpful behavior in CT than in the identical payoff matrix decision-making context. By not requiring extensive domain modeling, CT enables agent researchers to focus their attention on strategy design, and it provides an environment in which the influence of social factors can be better isolated and studied.Engineering and Applied Science

The Influence of Emotion Expression on Perceptions of Trustworthiness in Negotiation

When interacting with computer agents, people make inferences about various characteristics of these agents, such as their reliability and trustworthiness. These perceptions are significant, as they influence people’s behavior towards the agents, and may foster or inhibit repeated interactions between them. In this paper we investigate whether computer agents can use the expression of emotion to influence human perceptions of trustworthiness. In particular, we study human-computer interactions within the context of a negotiation game, in which players make alternating offers to decide on how to divide a set of resources. A series of negotiation games between a human and several agents is then followed by a “trust game.” In this game people have to choose one among several agents to interact with, as well as how much of their resources they will trust to it. Our results indicate that, among those agents that displayed emotion, those whose expression was in accord with their actions (strategy) during the negotiation game were generally preferred as partners in the trust game over those whose emotion expressions and actions did not mesh. Moreover, we observed that when emotion does not carry useful new information, it fails to strongly influence human decision-making behavior in a negotiation setting.Engineering and Applied Science