Show simple item record

Rational Communication in Multi-Agent Environments

dc.contributor.authorGmytrasiewicz, Piotr J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDurfee, Edmund H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-11T14:09:53Z
dc.date.available2006-09-11T14:09:53Z
dc.date.issued2001-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationGmytrasiewicz, Piotr J.; Durfee, Edmund H.; (2001). "Rational Communication in Multi-Agent Environments." Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 4(3): 233-272. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/44016>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1387-2532en_US
dc.identifier.issn1573-7454en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/44016
dc.description.abstractWe address the issue of rational communicative behavior among autonomous self-interested agents that have to make decisions as to what to communicate, to whom, and how. Following decision theory, we postulate that a rational speaker should design a speech act so as to optimize the benefit it obtains as the result of the interaction. We quantify the gain in the quality of interaction in terms of the expected utility, and we present a framework that allows an agent to compute the expected utilities of various communicative actions. Our framework uses the Recursive Modeling Method as the specialized representation used for decision-making in a multi-agent environment. This representation includes information about the agent's state of knowledge, including the agent's preferences, abilities and beliefs about the world, as well as the beliefs the agent has about the other agents, the beliefs it has about the other agents' beliefs, and so on. Decision-theoretic pragmatics of a communicative act can be then defined as the transformation the act induces on the agent's state of knowledge about its decision-making situation. This transformation leads to a change in the quality of interaction, expressed in terms of the expected utilities of the agent's best actions before and after the communicative act. We analyze decision-theoretic pragmatics of a number of important kinds of communicative acts and investigate their expected utilities using examples. Finally, we report on the agreement between our method of message selection and messages that human subjects choose in various circumstances, and show an implementation and experimental validation of our framework in a simulated multi-agent environment.en_US
dc.format.extent321801 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherKluwer Academic Publishers; Springer Science+Business Mediaen_US
dc.subject.otherComputer Scienceen_US
dc.subject.otherSoftware Engineering/Programming and Operating Systemsen_US
dc.subject.otherData Structures, Cryptology and Information Theoryen_US
dc.subject.otherUser Interfaces and Human Computer Interactionen_US
dc.subject.otherArtificial Intelligence (Incl. Robotics)en_US
dc.subject.otherDecision Theoryen_US
dc.subject.otherRationalityen_US
dc.subject.otherMulti-agent Systemsen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunicationen_US
dc.subject.otherPragmaticsen_US
dc.titleRational Communication in Multi-Agent Environmentsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelComputer Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPhilosophyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelEngineeringen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherComputer Science and Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, TX, 76013en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44016/1/10458_2004_Article_350961.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011495811107en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systemsen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.