Trivikram Immaneni and Michael T. Cox Computer Science and Engineering Department

1. Trivikram Immaneni and Michael T. Cox Computer Science and Engineering Department Wright State University Dayton, OH 45435 {timmanen,mcox}@cs.wright.edu http://www.cs.wright.edu/~mcox/gtrans/ GTrans: An Application for Managing Mixed-Initiative Collaborative Planning during Emergency Response Situations

2. Problem • Resource constraints often prevent perfect plans from being assembled • Users can either shift resources or shift goals • In information saturated scenarios what is the view presented to the user • Selective Filtering – present only “relevant” details

3. GTrans – Goal Transformation • GTrans – A Mixed-Initiative Planning System • “Planning as Goal Manipulation” Metaphor instead of “Search” metaphor Problem PRODIGY/AGENT Plan Constraints Domain File Single User / Single Planner

4. Collaborative Planning • Support of collaborative mixed – initiative planning among multiple users • Initial Approach – Present a single unified view of a planning scenario, associated resources and shared goals

5. GTrans Modes of Operation • Separate Planning Mode • Separate, stand alone planning without access to other users’ information • Info-Sharing Mode • User is aware of the problems on which the other users in the system are working • Joint Planning Mode - Multiple users can collaborate to solve a problem

6. Architecture Problem PRODIGY/AGENT Agent 1 Plan Domain File Joint Planning mode Constraints Problem PRODIGY/AGENT Server Plan Agent 2 Domain File Constraints Separate Planning mode

7. Design of the Emergency Response Domain • To put out a fire - Need a security vehicle to secure the scene of incident - Need a fire truck to put out the fire • A single fire truck can put out one fire and contain an arbitrary number of fires • To manage a chemical spill - Need security/ fire personnel to help the Hazmat Team (evacuate the area etc.) - Need a Hazmat Team to take care of the spill

8. Emergency Response Domain Example Agent 1 Agent 2 • Agent 1 needs Agent 2’s Sheriff Car • Agent 2 needs Agent 1’s Hazmat Team • Agent 1 needs to perform Goal Transformation

9. Emergency Response Domain Example Agent 1 Agent 2 • Agent 1 needs Agent 2’s Sheriff Car • Agent 2 needs Agent 1’s Hazmat Team • Agent 1 needs to perform Goal Transformation

10. Issues with the Unified Approach • Details presented may not be relevant - may overwhelm the users - need a filtering mechanism • Lack of “ownership” – Anyone can use any resource • User assumes that the resource is available

11. Shared Objects • Supports selective static filtering • Server acts as a Repository of resources • User can request the server for a resource • Only one user can use a resource at a time • Server controls the visibility of resources • User has to release the resource after use

12. Shared Objects Example

13. Future Research • Detecting Goal interactions - User 1 wants to secure a site by placing roadblock - User 2 wants to drive an ambulance to the site to assist the burn victims - Use of planning monitors • Dynamic filtering - View presented to the user must change with the change in the scenario • Alternative Representation of Goals - Not everyone can easily understand “(outcome-putout-fires xenia1)”

14. Conclusion • Mixed-initiative planning is well-suited for planning in emergency situations • Human user plays an active role in the planning process • GTrans helps multiple users to get a better perspective on the situation and provides a framework using which multiple users can negotiate

15. Questions