AAAI 2006 Spring Symposium on Distributed Plan and Schedule Management
Program (as of
March 23)
Monday, March 27, 9:00-10:30
Session: Plan and Schedule Flexibility
How can distributed
plans/schedules be configured to avoid, correct for, exploit, and/or tolerate
asynchronously arising local (environment or objective) deviations, and how can
patterns of local deviations be diagnosed and responded to in a distributed
manner?
An
Examination of Criticality-Sensitive Approaches to Coordination
Pedro Szekely,
Rajiv T. Maheswaran, Robert Neches, Craig M. Rogers
and Romeo Sanchez
Cooperative
Team Plan: Planning, Execution, and Replanning
Olivier Bonnet-Torres and Catherine Tessier
Discussant(s): Blazej Bulka and/or Marie desJardins
Position
Paper: Integrating
Top-Down Planning with a Bottom-Up Approach that Learns to Locally Combine
Actions
Monday, March 27, 11:00-12:30
Session: Distributed Constraint Reasoning
What principled techniques from distributed constraint
reasoning are suited to defining and solving the distributed plan/schedule
management problem?
Multiply-Constrained
DCOP for Distributed Planning and Scheduling
Emma Bowring, Milind Tambe, and Makoto
Yokoo
An Any-space Algorithm for Distributed Constraint
Optimization
Anton Chechetka
and Katia Sycara
Discussant(s):
Carla P. Gomes, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and/or
Position
Paper: Constraint
Programming for Distributed Planning and Scheduling
Monday, March 27, 2:00-3:30
Session: Distributed Planning
How can efficient techniques for robust
conditional/probabilistic planning, for plan monitoring and repair, for
continual plan refinement and replanning, etc., be
gainfully employed in distributed plan/schedule management?
GPGP
- A Domain Independent Implementation
John Phelps
Mark Sims, Hala
Mostafa, Bryan Horling, Haizheng
Zhang, Victor Lesser, Daniel Corkill, and John Phelps
Discussant(s):
Mathijs de Weerdt and/or Cees Witteveen
Position
Paper: Multiagent Planning: Problem Properties that Matter
Monday, March 27, 4:00-5:30
Session: Open and Heterogeneous Systems
What are the implications of bringing together
distributed heterogeneous agents, whose planning and scheduling concerns are at
very different temporal grain sizes or planning horizons, whose knowledge and
beliefs could be incomplete or inconsistent with each other, or whose
preferences and objectives might not be entirely aligned? How must distributed
planning and scheduling algorithms change to adapt to open world situations in
which the timing of events or activities are externally imposed and must be
worked around?
Edward Balaban,
Michael Orosz, Tatiana Kichkaylo,
Andre Goforth, Adam Sweet, and Robert Neches
Multi-Agent
Management of Joint Schedules
Stephen F. Smith, Anthony Gallagher,
Terry Zimmerman, Laura Barbulescu, and Zack
Rubinstein
Discussant(s):
Nicoleta Neagu, Klaus Dorer, and/or Monique Calisti
Position
Paper: Solving
Distributed Delivery Problems with Agent-Based Technologies and Constraint
Satisfaction Techniques
Tuesday, March 28, 9:00-10:30
Session: Application and Evaluation Issues
What application experiences exist in designing,
developing, and deploying distributed plan/schedule management systems, and
what can we learn from them? What metrics and testbeds
can be used to evaluate plan/schedule management systems?
Invited
Talk: Human Activity Coordination and the COORDINATORs
Program
Tom Wagner
Exploring
Coordination Properties within Populations of Distributed Agents
Elizabeth Sklar, Martijn
Schut, Konrad Diwold, and Simon Parsons
Discussant(s):
Pauline Berry, Melinda Gervasio, Bart Peintner, Tomás Uribe, and/or Neil Yorke-Smith
Position
Paper: Multi-Criteria
Evaluation in User-Centric Distributed Scheduling Agents
Tuesday, March 28, 11:00-12:30
Session: User-Centered Systems
How do the needs/expectations of human users and the participation
of users in the plan/schedule management process affect the design and behavior
of the overall system? How is dealing with possible instability in users’
preferences and objectives similar to, and different from, dealing with
environmental unpredictability during plan/schedule execution?
Challenges
in Coordinating Remote Sensing Systems
Robert Morris, Jennifer Dungan, and John Bresina
Distributed
Interactive Narrative Planning System
Joe Winegarden
and R. Michael Young
Discussant(s):
William Staderman
Position
Paper: HCI
Issues in Planning and Scheduling Systems
Tuesday, March 28, 2:00-3:30
Session: Meta-Level Reasoning
How should agents make meta-level decisions about how
to allocate computational (and other) resources to plan/schedule management
functions, including how frequently and thoroughly management within, and
across, their plans/schedules should be carried out?
Other
Agents’ Actions as Asynchronous Events
Kurt D. Krebsbach
Leveraging
Problem Classification in Online Meta-Cognition
Anita Raja, George Alexander, and Verghese Mappillai
Discussant(s):
David Sarne
and/or Barbara Grosz
Position
Paper: Timing
Interruptions for Better Human-Computer Coordinated Planning
Tuesday, March 28, 4:00-5:30
Session: Communication Issues
To what extent can and should communication be
effectively utilized in distributed plan/schedule management to formulate,
track, and dynamically repair distributed plans and schedules?
A
Constraint Optimization Framework for Fractured Robot Teams
Mary Koes,
Katia Sycara, and Illah Nourbakhsh
Adaptive
Robotic Communication using Coordination Costs for Improved Trajectory Planning
Avi Rosenfeld, Gal A. Kaminka,
and Sarit Kraus
Discussant(s):
Cees Witteveen and/or Mathijs de Weerdt
Position
Paper: Multi-agent
Planning for Non-Cooperative Agents
Wednesday, March 29, 9:00-10:30
Session: Distributed Policy Formulation
What principled techniques from distributed policy
formulation are suited to defining and solving the distributed plan/schedule
management problem?
Exploiting
Locality of Interaction in Networked Distributed POMDPs
Yoonheui Kim, Ranjit Nair, Pradeep Varakantham, Milind Tambe, and Makoto Yokoo
Coordinated
Plan Management Using Multiagent MDPs
David Musliner, Edmund Durfee, Robert
Goldman, Mark Boddy, Jianhui Wu, and Dmitri Dolgov
Discussant(s):
Yuqing Tang and/or Simon Parsons
Position
Paper: Using
Argumentation-Based Dialogues for Distributed Plan Management
Wednesday, March 29, 11:00-12:30
Session: Distributed Task Assignment and Scheduling
What principled techniques from distributed task
definition, assignment, and scheduling are suited to defining and solving the distributed
plan/schedule management problem?
Deciding
Task Schedules for Temporal Planning via Auctions
Alexander Babanov
and Maria Gini
A
Multiagent Task Associated MDP (MTAMDP) Approach
Pierrick Plamondon, Brahim Chaib-draa, and Abder Rezak Benaskeur
Discussant(s): Debra Walker
Position Paper:
The Role of Deliverable Specification in Automated Process Planning
Notes:
Each session lasts 90 minutes and involves 2
presentations of no more than 25 minutes each (including time for questions)
for full papers appearing in the working notes and the remainder of the time is
devoted to discussion led by an author of a position paper. (Note that invited presentation by Tom might
last more than 25 minutes, TBD.)
The session’s discussant is encouraged to work with
the session’s presenters in forming and framing the discussion. The question associated with each session is
only a starting point for where the concepts and results being presented could
lead.
The participants in a session have freedom to arrange
the timing as they see fit, such as the order of the two presentations, whether
some discussion (or context setting) by the discussants will occur before
and/or between the presentations, etc.
By default, after the two presentations, all authors
of the presented papers and all of the discussants who are present could sit up
front in a “panel” format, moderated by one of the discussants.
To a large extent, the sessions attempt to be designed
around a question (generally a variation of a question from the CFP).
The papers in the session have something to say about that
question. This is not to say that the
papers don’t address other questions too, nor that other papers don’t address
this question. That is why we are
leaving lots of time for discussion, so that others who have insights into how
to address this kind of question have a chance to voice them.
Because the discussant(s) has(have) a position paper
that might augment or contrast with the presentations, the discussant(s) can
feel free to articulate and briefly justify alternative positions, referencing
points made in the position paper. Thus, the discussant(s) can use their
position paper as one vehicle to promote discussion among the participants, but
should not give a formal presentation of the paper.