1 Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz Rineke Verbrugge.
-
Upload
janice-mcdonald -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz Rineke Verbrugge.
1
Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork
Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
Rineke Verbrugge
2
Formal theory of teamwork
Formal characterization of motivational attitudes in BDI systems: static theory – intentions– commitments
Attitudes are considered:– on three levels: individual, social, collective– in strictly cooperative teams
Evolution of attitudes in dynamic and / or unpredictable environment: dynamic theory
Static + dynamic theory = teamwork axioms
3
Dynamics of teamwork
Four stage model of teamwork:– potential recognition– team formation– plan formation– team action
Reconfiguration algorithm
Teamwork Reconfiguration
unpredictableenvironment
4
Collective attitudes
Collective commitment obeys:– collective intention to within the team– correct plan P leading to – collective awareness of correctness of P– social commitments for all actions in P– global collective awareness about
existence of social commitments
5
Collective attitudes
Collective intention Collective commitment:
– C-COMMG,P()
C-INTG() constitute(, P)
C-BELG(constitute(, P))
/\P\/i,jGCOMM(i, j, )
C-BELG( /\P\/i,jGCOMM(i, j, ))
6
The four levels of teamwork
Plan generation:– input:
• a group G with collective intention C-INTG()
– three-step process:• task division• means-end analysis• action allocation
7
The four levels of teamwork
Plan generation, overall process:– realized by the sequence of actions div;means;all
– successful performance:
succ(div(, );means(, );all(, P)) constitute(, P)
8
The four levels of teamwork
Plan generation, establishing collective commitment:– dial – dialogue used to establish
collective commitment
– C-INTG() constitute(, P) succ(dial(, G, P)) C-COMMG,P()
9
The four levels of CPS
Plan generation, a frame axiom:
– succ(div(, );means(, ); all(, P);dial(, G, P)) div(, ) means(, ) all(, P)
10
The four levels of teamwork
Team action:– execution of actions according to
C-COMMG,P()
– maintenance of social commitments and individual intentions,
– requires reconfiguration process.
11
Commitments during reconfiguration
Maintaining collective intention in changing environment requires reconfiguration and leads to the evolution of collective commitment.
Reconfiguration algorithm deals with failures of action execution.
It is divided in a number of cases.
12
Case 1: team action succeeds
In sequel, all properties are proved for all Kripke models M in which teamwork axioms hold, and all worlds w
Case 1: all actions from the social plan P succeed
– M,w╞═ C-COMMG,P() [conf(succ(P))] – leads to system-success
13
Case 2: an action failed
C-COMMG,P() has to be dropped
Situation is not a priori hopeless, depending on possibilities of action reallocation and planning
14
Case 2: team action failed, subcases
– a new action allocation succeeds (2a), or– a new action allocation fails, and
• a failed action blocks achieving the goal (2b), or• no failed action blocks achieving the goal, and
– a new means-end analysis and action allocation succeeds (2c), or
– new means-end analysis and action allocation fails, and» a new task division, means-end analysis and action
allocation succeeds (2d), or» a new task division, means-end analysis and action
allocation fails: back to team formation.
15
Case 2a: reallocation possible
If:– some actions failed but– none of them failed for an objective reason– reallocation of these actions is possible
Then:– a new collective commitment can be
established based on a new plan P ’
16
Case 2a: reallocation possible
M,w╞═ C-INTG() div(,) means(,)
[conf(succ(all(, P ’);dial(, G, P ’)))]
C-COMMG,P ’()
- current action sequence– P ’ - a new social plan
17
Case 2b: some failed action blocks the main goal
If: – at least one action necessary for
achievement of the goal failed for an objective reason
– no agent will succeed in executing this action
Then: – this leads to system-failure
18
Case 2c: new means-end analysis possible
If:– some actions failed– action reallocation is not possible– none of failed actions blocks the goal– a new means-end analysis is possible
Then:– a new collective commitment can be established
based on new plan P ’
19
Case 2c: new means-end analysis possible
for current goal sequence and action sequence and for every social plan P’, there are ’ and P ’’ such that:
M,w╞═ C-INTG() div(, ) [conf(failed(all(, P ’))] [conf(succ(means(, ’);all( ’, P ’’); dial(, G, P ’’)))]
C-COMMG,P ’’()
20
Case 2d: new task division possible
If:– some actions failed– neither action reallocation nor new means-end
analysis is possible – none of failed actions blocks the goal– a new task division is possible
Then:– a new collective commitment can be established
based on new plan P ’’
21
Case 2d: new task division possible
for current goal sequence and action sequence and for every social plan P ’ and action sequence ’, there are ’, ’’ and P ’’ such that:
C-INTG() [conf(failed(all(, P ’))] [conf(failed(means(, ’))]
[conf(succ(div(, ’);means( ’, ’’); all( ’’, P ’’);dial(, G, P ’’)))]C-COMMG,P ’’()
22
Conclusions
Teamwork axioms:– constitute a definition of motivational attitudes in
BDI systems: static part– constitute a specification of their evolution in a
dynamic environment: dynamic part– may serve the system developer as a high level
specification of the system High level of idealization: solely strictly cooperative
teams are considered
23
Future work
To relax strong assumptions put on cooperative problem solving
To investigate weaker and more distributed forms of cooperation
To investigate non-normal multi-modal framework in order to prevent logical omniscience and side-effect problems