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