Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai    |    Awaiting the gospel from Sarah Connor    |    1,954 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 150 of 1,954    |
|    Christian Guttmann to All    |
|    Re: is communication a requirement to co    |
|    03 Nov 03 04:12:03    |
      XPost: comp.ai.alife       From: christian.guttmann@csse.monash.edu.au              Hello,              Thanks, David, Martijn and Anthony, for your responses.              > >Hello,       >       > >I am currently looking into communication and collaboration among       > >agents. Does anyone have an educated answer about the following question.       >       > > > Is collaboration possible without communication?       >       > >By "without communication", I mean: no exchange of any information       > >whatsoever - not before collaboration, not during collaboration, not       > >through the environment, not through signals and not through direct means.       >       > >In case, anyone has a positive answer, it would be helpful if there is       > >also a publication about this matter.       >       > >I am looking forward to responses.       >       > >/Christian       >       > It depends on what exactly you mean by collaboration and how strictly       > you interpret the "no exchange of any information" caveat. If you       > mean information in the sense of Shannon, the answer is probably no.       > But if you allow that agents can simply observe each other's behaviour,       > then I'd say yes.              My understanding of collaboration is, that at least two agents engage       in a task-oriented activity and have an understanding that reaching an       individual or collective goal is unattainable by an individual agent.       Additionally, there must be at least one collective activity which       requires the contribution of all participating agents in this       collaboration. Every participating agent would have some understanding       about its own willingness, ability and effects towards the       collaboration.              My definition only requires at least one collective activity to be a       collaboration. I suppose, my original question was: Must this       collective activity be a communicational act or can it be another act?              Why is the answer in Shannon's sense "no"? His model suggests to have       a simple Sender - Receiver channel and the only influence to this       transmission is noise. So what you say is, if there is no such channel       then there is no way that the potential parties would even know about       collaboration.              > Suppose you and I are walking towards each other on a footpath/sidewalk       > heading for a collision. We both notice this and deviate to avoid it,       > perhaps using a model of expected agent behaviour to both diverge to our       > respective left (or maybe right in the USA). I'd call that cooperation       > without communication. Here cooperation is just avoiding interference,       > while collaboration usually means working to jointly achieve a shared       > goal. But you could even argue that a shared goal "avoid collision" has       > arisen by chance in this situation, so it is a case of collaboration.       >              I interpret the "no exchange of any information" caveat strict. This       includes behavioural observation. Especially in your "collision" case,       to reach the goal of not colliding, both parties must indicate       (communicate) to each other (through behaviour) which way to go.              > More generally, provided they can observe each other's behaviour, agents       > can learn to cooperate or collaborate without communication by building       > and refining models of each other's behaviour, knowledge and motivation,       > then using these to adjust their own behaviours.              This is very interesting! Who has published about such models of each       other's behaviour, knowledge and motivation (preferable not only       theory, but some evaluation)? I am not only interested in "behaviour       observation models" of other agents but also in models where the only       commonality may be language and protocols. I got the impression that       many Multi Agent systems are developed under the assumptions that half       of other agent's model is already implemented by the designer. Could       you confirm that?              cheers, Chris              [ comp.ai is moderated. To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]       [ that fails mail your article to |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca