Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The complexity of multi-agent plan recognition

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

Abstract

Multi-agent plan recognition (MAPR) seeks to identify the dynamic team structures and team plans from observations of the action sequences of a set of intelligent agents, based on a library of known team plans (plan library), and an evaluation function. It has important applications in decision support, team work, analyzing data from automated monitoring, surveillance, and intelligence analysis in general. We introduce a general model for MAPR that accommodates different representations of the plan library, and includes single agent plan recognition as a special case. Thus it provides an ideal substrate to investigate and contrast the complexities of single and multi-agent plan recognition. Using this model we generate theoretical insights on hardness, with practical implications. A key feature of these results is that they are baseline, i.e., the polynomial solvability results are given in terms of a compact and expressive plan language (context free language), while the hardness results are given in terms of a less compact language. Consequently the hardness results continue to hold in virtually all realistic plan languages, while the polynomial solvability results extend to the subsets of the context free plan language. In particular, we show that MAPR is in P (polynomial in the size of the plan library and the observation trace) if the number of agents is fixed (in particular 1) but NP-complete otherwise. If the number of agents is a variable, then even the one step MAPR problem is NP-complete. While these results pertain to abduction, we also investigate a related question: adaptation, i.e., the problem of refining the evaluation function based on feedback. We show that adaptation is also NP-hard for a variable number of agents, but easy for a single agent. These results establish a clear distinction between the hardnesses of single and multi-agent plan recognition even in idealized settings, indicating the necessity of a fundamentally different set of techniques for the latter.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The recognizer may infer role constraints based on the domain theory of the operators, but for this article we assume that these are a part of the plan representation.

References

  1. Abdelbar, A. M. (2004). Approximating cost-based abduction is NP-hard. Artificial Intelligence, 159(1–2), 231–239.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Avrahami-Zilberbrand, D., & Kaminka, G. A. (2007). Towards dynamic tracking of multi-agent teams: An initial report. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Plan, Activity and Intent Recognition (PAIR-07).

  3. Avrahami-Zilberbrand, D., & Kaminka, G. A. (2007). Incorporating observer biases in keyhole plan recognition (efficiently!). In Proceedings of AAAI-07.

  4. Banerjee, B., Kraemer, L., & Lyle, J. (2010). Multi-agent plan recognition: Formalization and algorithms. Proceedings of AAAI-10, Atlanta, GA (pp. 1059–1064).

  5. Barry, D., & Hartigan, J. A. (1992). Product partition models for change point problems. The Annals of Statistics, 20, 260–279.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Beetz, M., Gedikli, S., Kirchlechner, B., Maldonado, A. (2006). Camera-based observation of football games for analyzing multi-agent activities. In Proceedings of AAMAS.

  7. Bernstein, D. S., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27, 819–840.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Bishop, C. M. (2007). Pattern recognition and machine learning (information science and statistics). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boutilier, C., & Brafman, R. I. (2001). Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. JAIR, 14(1), 105–136.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Brenner, M. (2003). A multiagent planning language. In Proceedings of the ICAPS-03 workshop on PDDL (pp. 33–38).

  11. Bui, H. (2003). A general model for online probabilistic plan recognition. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI (pp. 1309–1315).

  12. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1995). From single-agent to multi-agent: Challenges for plan recognition systems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-95 Workshop on The Next Generation of Plan Recognition Systems (pp. 24–32).

  13. Charniak, E., & Goldman, R. P. (1993). A Bayesian model of plan recognition. Artificial Intelligence, 64, 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, P. R., Perrault, C. R., & Allen, J. F. (1981). Beyond question answering. In W. Lehnert & M. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Devaney, M., & Ram, A. (1998). Needles in a haystack: Plan recongition in large spatial domains involving multiple agents. In Proceedings of AAAI conference.

  16. Erol, K., Hendler, J., & Nau, D. S. (1994). HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94) (pp. 1123–1128). Seattle, WA: AAAI Press.

  17. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Geib, C. (2004). Assessing the complexity of plan recognition. In Proceedings of AAAI-04.

  19. Geib, C., & Goldman, R. (2003). Recognizing plan/goal abandonment. In Proceedings of IJCAI-03.

  20. Geib, C. W., & Goldman, R. P. (2009). A probabilistic plan recognition algorithm based on plan tree grammars. Artificial Intelligence, 173(11), 1101–1132.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Geib, C. W., & Goldman, R. P. (2002). Requirements for plan recognition in network security systems. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection.

  22. Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2004). Automated planning: Theory and practice. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goldman, R. P., Geib, C. W., & Miller, C. A. (1999). A new model of plan recognition. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.

  24. Goldsmith, J., & Mundhenk, M. (2007). Competition adds complexity. In Proceedings of the NIPS.

  25. Hongeng, S., & Nevatia, R. (2001). Multi-agent event recognition. In Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (Vol. 2, pp. 84–91).

  26. Hsiao, J., Yuan, T., & Chang, R. S. (1992). An efficient algorithm for finding a maximum weight \(2\)-independent set on interval graphs. Information Processing Letters, 43(5), 229–235.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Huber, M. J., & Durfee, E. H. (1992). Plan recognition for real-world autonomous robots: Work in progress. In Working Notes of AAAI Symposium: Applications of AI to Real-World Autonomous Robots.

  28. Ieong, S., & Shoham, Y. (2005). Marginal contribution nets: A compact representation scheme for coalitional games. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 193–202).

  29. Intille, S., & Bobick, A. (1999). A framework for recognizing multi-agent action from visual evidence. In Proceedings of AAAI.

  30. Jensen, R. M., & Veloso, M. M. (2005). ASET: A multi-agent planning language with nondeterministic durative tasks for BDD-based fault tolerant planning. In Proceedings of the 2005 ICAPS Workshop on Multi-agent Planning and Scheduling (pp. 58–65).

  31. Kaminka, G. A., & Bowling, M. (2002). Towards robust teams with many agents. In Proceeding of AAMAS-02.

  32. Kaminka, G. A., Pynadath, D. V., & Tambe, M. (2002). Monitoring teams by overhearing: A multi-agent plan recognition approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17, 83–135.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Kautz, H. A., & Allen, J. F. (1986). Generalized plan recognition. In Proceedings of AAAI.

  34. Kebert, A., Banerjee, B., George, G., Solano, J., & Solano, W. (2013). Detecting distributed SQL injection attacks in a Eucalyptus cloud environment. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Security and Management (SAM-13), Las Vegas, NV, July. Las Vegas, NV: CSREA Press.

  35. Lesh, N., & Etzioni, O. (1995). Insights from machine learning for plan recognition. In Proceedings of the Workshop on The Next Generation of Plan Recognition Systems: Challenges for and Insight from Related Areas of AI (pp. 78–83).

  36. Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y. (2008). Essentials of game theory: A concise multidisciplinary introduction. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 2(1), 1–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Norman, M. D. T. J., Vasconcelos, W. W., & Sycara, K. (2011). Agent-oriented incremental team and activity recognition. In Proceedings of IJCAI.

  38. Pynadath, D. V., & Wellman, M. P. (2000). Probabilistic state-dependent grammars for plan recognition. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI2000 (pp. 507–514). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

  39. Ramirez, M., & Geffner, H. (2009). Plan recognition as planning. In Proceedings of IJCAI.

  40. Ramirez, M., & Geffner, H. (2010). Probabilistic plan recognition using off-the-shelf classical planners. Proceedings of AAAI-10, Atlanta, GA (pp. 1121–1126).

  41. Ristad, E. S. (1993). The language complexity game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sidner, C. (1985). Plan parsing for intended response recognition in discourse. Computational Intelligence, 1(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sukthankar, G., & Sycara, K. (2006). Simultaneous team assignment and behavior recognition from spatio-temporal agent traces. In Proceedings of AAAI conference.

  44. Sukthankar, G., & Sycara, K. (2008). Hypothesis pruning and ranking for large plan recognition problems. In Proceedings of AAAI.

  45. Sukthankar, G., & Sycara, K. (2008). Robust and efficient plan recognition for dynamic multi-agent teams (short paper). In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

  46. Sukthankar, G., & Sycara, K. (2011). Activity recognition for dynamic multi-agent teams. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 3(1), 18:1–18:24.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tambe, M. (1995). Recursive agent and agent-group tracking in a real-time, dynamic environment. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multiagent Systems (pp. 368–375).

  48. Tambe, M. (1996). Tracking dynamic team activity. In Proceedings of AAAI.

  49. Vilain, M. (1990). Getting serious about parsing plans: A grammatical analysis of plan recognition. In Proceedings of AAAI-90.

  50. Zhuo, H. H., & Li, L. (2011). Multi-agent plan recognition with partial team traces and plan libraries. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11) (pp. 484–489).

  51. Zhuo, H. H., Yang, Q., & Kambhampati, S. (2012). Action-model based multi-agent plan recognition. In Proceedings of NIPS.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Dr. #5106, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA

    Bikramjit Banerjee, Jeremy Lyle & Landon Kraemer

Authors
  1. Bikramjit Banerjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Lyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Landon Kraemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bikramjit Banerjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Banerjee, B., Lyle, J. & Kraemer, L. The complexity of multi-agent plan recognition. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 29, 40–72 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9248-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9248-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation