Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptive decision-making frameworks for dynamic multi-agent organizational change

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a capability called Adaptive Decision-Making Frameworks (ADMF) and shows that it can result in significantly improved system performance across run-time situation changes in a multi-agent system. Specifically, ADMF can result in improved and more robust performance compared to the use of a single static decision-making framework (DMF). The ADMF capability allows agents to dynamically adapt the DMF in which they participate to fit their run-time situation as it changes. A DMF identifies a set of agents and specifies the distribution of decision-making control and the authority to assign subtasks among these agents as they determine how a goal or set of goals should be achieved. The ADMF capability is a form of organizational adaptation and differs from previous approaches to organizational adaptation and dynamic coordination in that it is the first to allow dynamic and explicit manipulation of these DMF characteristics at run-time as variables controlling agent behavior. The approach proposed for selecting DMFs at run-time parameterizes all domain-specific knowledge as characteristics of the agents’ situation, so the approach is application-independent. The presented evaluation empirically shows that, for at least one multi-agent system, there is no one best DMF for multiple agents across run-time situational changes. Next, it motivates the further exploration of ADMF by showing that adapting DMFs to run-time variations in situation can result in improved overall system performance compared to static or random DMFs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barber K.S., Han D.C. and Liu T.H. (2000). Coordinating distributed decision making using reusable interaction specifications. In: Zhang, C. and Soo, V.-W. (eds) Design and applications of intelligent agents: Third pacific rim international workshop on multi-agents, PRIMA 2000, Melbourne, Australia, August 2000, Proceedings, pp 1–15. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barber K.S., Liu T.H., Han D.C. (2001) Strategy selection-based meta-level reasoning for multi-agent problem solving. In: Ciancarini P., Wooldridge M. (Ed) Agent oriented software engineering, Vol. 1957. Springer Verlag pp. 269–284.

  3. Barber K.S. and Martin C.E. (2001). Autonomy as decision-making control. In: Castelfranchi, C. and Lesperance, Y. (eds) Intelligent agents VII: Agent theories architectures and languages., pp 343–345. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barber K.S. and Martin C.E. (2001). Dynamic adaptive autonomy in multi-agent systems: Representation and justification. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 15(3): 405–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barber K.S. and Martin C.E. (2001). The Motivation for dynamic decision-making frameworks in multi-agent systems. In: Jiming, Liu, Zhong, N., Tang, Y.Y. and Wang, P.S. (eds) Agent engineering., pp 59–91. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barber K.S., Martin C.E. and McKay R.M. (2001). A communication protocol supporting dynamic autonomy agreements in multi-agent systems. In: Kowalczyk, R., Loke, S.W., Reed, N.E., and Williams, G. (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence: PRICAI 2000 workshop reader., pp 303–320. Four Workshops held at PRICAI 2000, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barber K.S., Martin C.E., Reed N.E. and Kortenkamp D. (2001). Dimensions of adjustable autonomy. In: Kowalczyk, R., Loke, S.W., Reed, N.E., and Williams, G. (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence: PRICAI 2000 Workshop Reader. Four Workshops held at PRICAI 2000, Melbourne, Australia, August/September 2000, Vol. LNAI 211 Revised Papers ed., pp 353–361. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barber K.S., McKay R.M., Goel A., Han D.C., Kim J., Liu T.H. and Martin C.E. (2000). Sensible agents: The distributed architecture and testbed. IEICE Transactions on Communications. IECIA/IEEE Joint Special Issue on Autonomous Decentralized Systems E83-B(5): 951–960

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bharatia, V. A., & Cook, D. J. (1995). Design and analysis of centralized, distributed, and group multi-agents coordination models, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, Technical Report.

  10. Bond A.H. and Gasser L. (1998). An analysis of problems and research in DAI. In: Bond, A.H. and Gasser, L. (eds) Readings in distributed artificial intelligence, pp 3–35. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Mateo CA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Briggs, W., & Cook, D., (1995). Flexible social laws. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence(pp. 688–693) Montreal, Que, Canada.

  12. Brooks, C. H., Durfee, E. H., & Armstrong, A. (2001). An introduction to congregating in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS-2000) (pp. 79–86). Boston, MA.

  13. Castelfranchi, C. (1995) Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (pp. 41–48). San Francisco, CA.

  14. Cohen P.R. and Levesque H.J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42: 213–261

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Daft R.L. and Marcic D. (1998). Understanding management (2nd ed.). Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davin, J., & Modi, P. J. (2005) Impact of problem centralization in distributed constraint optimization algorithms. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems (pp. 1057–1066). The Netherlands: Utrecht.

  17. Decker, K., & Lesser, V. (1993). A one-shot dynamic coordination algorithm for distributed sensor networks. In Proceedings of the eleventh national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 210–216). Washington, DC.

  18. Decker K.S. and Sycara K.P. (1997). Intelligent adaptive information agents. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 9(3): 239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dorais, G. A., Bonasso, R. P., Kortenkamp, D., Pell, B., & Schreckenghost, D. (1998). Adjustable autonomy for human-centered autonomous systems on Mars, In Proceedings Mars society conference, (pp. 397–419). Boulder, CO.

  20. Durfee E.H. (1996). Planning in distributed artificial intelligence. In: O’Hare, G.M.P. and Jennings, N.R. (eds) Foundations of distributed Artificial intelligence., pp 231–245. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Durfee, E. H., & Lesser, V. R. (1987). Using partial global plans to coordinate distributed problem solvers. In Proceedings of the tenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 875–883). Milan, Italy.

  22. Excelente-Toledo C.B. and Jennings N.R. (2004). The dynamic selection of coordination mechanisms. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 9: 55–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Falcone R. and Castelfranchi C. (2000). Levels of delegation and levels of adoption as the basis for adjustable autonomy. In: Lamma, E. and Mello, P. (eds) AI*IA 99: Advances in artificial intelligence. Selected papers from proceedings of the sixth congress of the Italian association for artificial intelligence, Bologna, Italy, September 1999., pp 273–284. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fox M.S., Barbuceanu M., Gruninger M. and Lin J. (1998). An organizational ontology for enterprise modeling. In: Prietula, M.J., Carley, K.M., and Gasser, L. (eds) Simulating organization., pp. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gasser L., Rouquette N.F., Hill R.W. and Lieb J. (1998). Representing and using organizational knowledge in DAI systems. In: Gasser, L. and Huhns, M.N. (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence Vol. 2., pp 55–78. Pitman/Morgan Kaufman, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haddadi, A. (1995). Towards a pragmatic theory of interactions. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-Agents systems (pp. 133–139). San Francisco, California.

  27. Hirayama, K., & Toyoda J. (1995) Forming coalitions for breaking deadlocks. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (pp. 155–162). San Franciso, CA.

  28. Ishida T., Gasser L. and Yokoo M. (1992). Organization self-design of distributed production systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 4(2): 123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jennings N.R. (1993). Commitments and conventions: the foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3): 223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jennings N.R. (1993). Coordination techniques for distributed artificial intelligence. In: O’Hare, G.M.P. and Jennings, N.R. (eds) Foundations of distributed artificial intelligence., pp 187–210. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kortenkamp, D., Keirn-Schreckenghost, D., & Bonasso, R. P. (2000). Adjustable control autonomy for manned space flight. In Proceedings of the IEEE aerospace conference (pp. 18–25). Big Sky, MT.

  32. Lawrence P.R. and Lorsch J.W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lerman, K., & Shehory, O. (2000). Coalition formation for large-scale electronic markets. In Proc. Fourth international conference on multi agent systems (ICMAS-2000) (pp. 167–174). Boston, MA.

  34. Lin Z. (1998). The choice between accuracy and errors: A contingency analysis of external conditions and organizational decision making performance. In: Prietula, M.J., Carley, K.M. and Gasser, L. (eds) Simulating organization., pp. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park CA

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martin C.E. (2001). Adaptive decision-making frameworks for multi-agent systems. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mertens P., Falk J. and Spieck S. (1997). Comparisons of agent approaches with centralized alternatives based on logistical scenarios. Information Systems 19(8): 699–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Milton J.S. and Arnold J.C. (1990). Introduction to probability and statistics: Principles and applications for engineering and the computing Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Moulin B. and Chaib-draa B. (1996). An overview of distributed artificial intelligence. In: O’Hare, G.M.P. and Jennings, N.R. (eds) Foundations of distributed artificial intelligence., pp 3–55. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Musliner, D. J., & Krebsbach, K. D. (1999). Adjustable autonomy in procedural control for refineries. In Proceedings of the AAAI 1999 spring symposium series: agents with adjustable Autonomy (pp. 81–87). Stanford University, Stanford, Califonia.

  40. Myers, K. L., & Morley, D. N. (2001). Directing agent communities: An initial framework. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-2001 workshop on autonomy, delegation, and control: Interacting with autonomous agents (pp. 81–88). Seattle, WA.

  41. Noh, S., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (1999). Implementation and evaluation of rational communicative behavior in coordinated defense. In Proceedings of the third international conference on autonomous agents (Agents-99) (pp. 123–130). Seattle, WA.

  42. Noh, S., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (1999). Towards flexible multi-agent decision-making under time pressure. In Proceedings of the sixteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-99) (pp. 492–498). Stockholm, Sweden.

  43. Reed, N., & Scerri, P. (2000). Online control of agents using EASE: Implementing adjustable autonomy using teams. In Proceedings of the first workshop on teams with adjustable autonomy (pp. 1–8). Melbourne, Australia.

  44. Sandholm, T., & Lesser, V. R. (1995). Issues in automated negotiation and electronic commerce: Extending the contract net framework. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agents systems (pp. 328–335). San Francisco, CA.

  45. Sandholm T.W. and Lesser V.R. (1997). Coalitions among computationally bounded agents, Artificial Intelligence 94(1): 99–137

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Scerri, P., Pynadath, D. V., & Tambe, M. (2001). Adjustable autonomy in real-world multi-agent environments. In Proceedings of the autonomous agents (pp. 300–307). Montreal, Canada.

  47. Scott W.R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (3rd ed). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sen, S., & Dutta, P. S. (2000). Searching for optimal coalition structures. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multiAgent systems (ICMAS-2000) (pp. 287–292). Boston, MA.

  49. Shehory O. and Kraus S. (1998). Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artificial Intelligence 101(1–2): 165–200

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Singh M.P. (1990). Group ability and structure. In: Demazeau, Y. and Müller, J.-P. (eds) Decentralized A.I. 2: Proceedings of the second european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France, August 13–16, 1990, pp 127–45. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  51. So Y.-P. and Durfee E.H. (1998). Designing organizations for computational agents. In: Prietula, M.J., Carley, K.M. and Gasser, L. (eds) Simulating organizations., pp 47–66. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park CA

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stephens, L. M., & Merx, M. (1989). Agent organization as an effector of DAI system performance. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 263–292).

  53. Sycara K.P. (1997). Multiagent systems. AI Magazine 19: 79–92

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tambe M. (1997). Agent architectures for flexible, practical teamwork. In Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on aritificial intelligence (p. 1092). Providence, Rhode Island.

  55. Tambe M. (1997). Towards flexible teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7: 83–124

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wagner T. and Lesser V. (2000). Relating quantified motivations for organizationally situated agents. In: Jennings, N.R. and Lesperance, Y. (eds) Intelligent agents VI: Agent theories, architectures and languages., pp 334–348. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78713, USA

    Cheryl Martin

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Laboratory for Intelligent Processes and Systems, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78713, USA

    K. Suzanne Barber

Authors
  1. Cheryl Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Suzanne Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, C., Barber, K.S. Adaptive decision-making frameworks for dynamic multi-agent organizational change. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 13, 391–428 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-0009-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-0009-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation