David Traum
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of simulation-based training for individual tasks -- such as piloting skills -- is well established, but its use for team training raises challenging technical issues. Ideally, human users could gain valuable leadership experience by interacting with synthetic teammates in realistic and potentially stressful scenarios. However, creating human-like teammates that can support flexible, natural interactions with humans and other synthetic agents requires integrating a wide variety of capabilities, including models of teamwork, models of human negotiation, and the ability to participate in face-to-face spoken conversations in virtual worlds. We have developed such virtual humans by integrating and extending prior work in these areas, and we have applied our virtual humans to an example peacekeeping training scenario to guide and evaluate our research. Our models allow agents to reason about authority and responsibility for individual actions in a team task and, as appropriate, to carry out actions, give and accept orders, monitor task execution, and negotiate options. Negotiation is guided by the agents' dynamic assessment of alternative actions given the current scenario conditions, with the aim of guiding the human user towards an ability to make similar assessments.
- J. F. Allen. Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances. In M. Brady and R. C. Berwick, editors, Computational Models of Discourse. MIT Press, 1983.]]Google Scholar
- J. Allwood, J. Nivre, and E. Ahlsen. On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Journal of Semantics, 9, 1992.]]Google Scholar
- R. Bindiganavale, W. Schuler, J. M. Allbeck, N. I. Badler, A. K. Joshi, and M. Palmer. Dynamically altering agent behaviors using natural language instructions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 293--300, New York, 2000. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill, editors. Embodied Conversational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.]]Google Scholar
- H. H. Clark and E. F. Schaefer. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13:259--294, 1989.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.]]Google Scholar
- P. R. Cohen and C. R. Perrault. Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3(3):177--212, 1979.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. A. Connolly, J. Johnson, and C. Lexa. AVATAR: An intelligent air traffic control simulator and trainer. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS '98), number 1452 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 534--543, Berlin, 1998. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Dillenbourg, D. Traum, and D. Schneider. Grounding in multi-modal task-oriented collaboration. In Proceedings of the European Conference on AI in Education, 1996.]]Google Scholar
- Discourse Resource Initiative. Standards for dialogue coding in natural language processing. Report no. 167, Dagstuhl-Seminar, 1997.]]Google Scholar
- C. Eliot and B. P. Woolf. An adaptive student centered curriculum for an intelligent training system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Instruction, 5:67--86, 1995.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- FIPA. Fipa 97 specification part 2: Agent communication language. working paper available at http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/fipa/spec/fipa97/f8a21.zip, 1997.]]Google Scholar
- J. Gratch. Émile: Marshalling passions in training and education. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 325--332, New York, 2000. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. J. Grosz and S. Kraus. Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence, 86(2):269--357, 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Jennings. Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artificial Intelligence, 75, 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. L. Johnson, J. W. Rickel, and J. C. Lester. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11:47--78, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- S. Larsson and D. Traum. Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit. Natural Language Engineering, 6:323--340, September 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. J. Levesque, P. R. Cohen, and J. H. T. Nunes. On acting together. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 94--99, Los Altos, CA, 1990. Morgan Kaufmann.]]Google Scholar
- S. Marsella and J. Gratch. A step toward irrationality: Using emotion to change belief. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, New York, 2002. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. McAllester and D. Rosenblitt. Systematic nonlinear planning. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), pages 634--639, Menlo Park, CA, 1991. AAAI Press.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. D. Moore. A Reactive Approach to Explanation in Expert and Advice Giving Systems. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1989.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. H. Nakatani and D. R. Traum. Coding discourse structure in dialogue (version 1.0). Technical Report UMIACS-TR-99-03, University of Maryland, 1999.]]Google Scholar
- D. Novick. Control of Mixed-Initiative Discourse Through Meta-Locutionary Acts: A Computational Model. PhD thesis, University of Oregon, 1988. also available as U. Oregon Computer and Information Science Tech Report CIS-TR-88-18.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Rickel. An intelligent tutoring framework for task-oriented domains. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 109--115, Montréal, Canada, June 1988. Université de Montréal.]]Google Scholar
- J. Rickel and W. L. Johnson. Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13:343--382, 1999.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Rickel and W. L. Johnson. Extending virtual humans to support team training in virtual reality. In G. Lakemayer and B. Nebel, editors, Exploring Artificial Intelligence in the New Millenium, pages 217--238. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Rickel, S. Marsella, J. Gratch, R. Hill, D. Traum, and W. Swartout. Toward a new generation of virtual humans for interactive experiences. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Roberts, N. J. Pioch, and W. Ferguson. Verbal coaching during a real-time task. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS '98), pages 344--353, Berlin, 1998. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Swartout, R. Hill, J. Gratch, W. Johnson, C. Kyriakakis, K. Labore, R. Lindheim, S. Marsella, D. Miraglia, B. Moore, J. Morie, J. Rickel, M. Thiebaux, L. Tuch, R. Whitney, and J. Douglas. Toward the holodeck: Integrating graphics, sound, character and story. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Tambe. Towards flexible teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 7:83--124, 1997.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. R. Traum. A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, 1994. Also available as TR 545, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Traum and J. F. Allen. Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1--8, 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Traum and E. A. Hinkelman. Conversation acts in task-oriented spoken dialogue. Computational Intelligence, 8(3):575--599, 1992.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Traum and J. Rickel. Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the first International Joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent systems, pages 766--773, 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. A. Walker and S. Whittaker. Mixed initiative in dialogue: An investigation into discourse segmentation. In Proceedings ACL-90, pages 70--78, 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Woolf, D. Blegan, J. H. Jansen, and A. Verloop. Teaching a complex industrial process. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-86), pages 722--728, Los Altos, CA, 1986. Morgan Kaufmann.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Negotiation over tasks in hybrid human-agent teams for simulation-based training
Recommendations
Tasks for agent-based negotiation teams: Analysis, review, and challenges
An agent-based negotiation team is a group of interdependent agents that join together as a single negotiation party due to their shared interests in the negotiation at hand. The reasons to employ an agent-based negotiation team may vary: (i) more ...
Negotiation coalitions in group-choice multi-agent systems
AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systemsIn Group-Choice Decision Making (GCDM) where a number of stakeholders are involved in choosing a single solution from a set of available solution options, it is common for the stakeholders to form coalitions during negotiations in order to increase ...
HOMAN, a learning based negotiation method for holonic multi-agent systems
Holonic multi-agent systems are a special category of multi-agent systems that best fit to environments with numerous agents and high complexity. Like in general multi-agent systems, the agents in the holonic system may negotiate with each other. These ...
Comments