Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork

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

4. Collective attitudes • Collective commitment obeys: • collective intention to  within the team • correct planP 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,jGCOMM(i, j, )  C-BELG( /\P\/i,jGCOMM(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