Re: Proposals for RoboCupRescue 2003 regulations

From: Lin Padgham (linpa@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au)
Date: Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 06:07:04 GMT

  • Next message: Ranjit Nair: "[rescue:5552] Re: Proposals for RoboCupRescue 2003 regulations (fwd)"

    I think this sounds like a good proposal.

    Also Centres don't do any acting really other than sending messges, so
    it makes sense for them to have more message sending capacity.

    lin

    > I tend to agree with Mazda on the issue of the ACL. It is not for the
    > simulator to specify the format or content of messages. In order for the
    > simulation to be realistic, the agents should be free to decide on how
    > or what they communicate. Hence I am against the idea of an explicit ACL.
    > It should be up to the agents to decide on whatever ACL to use.
    >
    > This said, the kinds of restrictions you propose are very necessary too. I
    > would thus put restrictions on:
    > 1. The number of messages sent (already exists)
    > 2. The number of messages received (already exists)
    > 3. The number of bytes communicated. (new proposal)
    >
    >
    > This could be a restriction on the
    > size of an individual message or the total number of bytes sent in a
    > single cycle. In most human languages we talk at about 5-6.5 syllables/sec.
    > This translates into roughly 300-400 syllables/minutes. The average word
    > in English is 1.4 syllables long and roughly 4-5 bytes (including spaces).
    > Therefore, if we were considering human speech in English we would be able
    > to speak about 1100 bytes if we were speaking continuously. That is no
    > time for acting or listening.
    >
    > Let us assume for a moment that we are allowed to hear and send 4 messages
    > of 80 bytes each in every time step. Since speaking rates= listening rate,
    > this would mean about that for 8 messages (4 heard and 4 spoken), it would
    > take the agent about 35 secs leaving about 25 secs to act. I think this is
    > a fair assumption.
    >
    > Hence my proposal is that each message that an agent send should not be
    > more than 80 bytes long. Such restrictions on the amount of information shared prevents the
    > distributed problem degenerating into a centralized single controller
    > problem.
    >
    > I think that centers (fire station, ambulance
    > center and police office) should be allowed to send and receive more
    > messages than other agents because we can assume that they have better
    > hardware and more manpower. I agree with Takeshi's proposal on the number
    > of messages for centers.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ranjit
    >
    >
    > > Dear All,
    > >
    > > > My main question is why there is a need of definition of an explicit ACL for
    > > > agent conversation? If you think there is need, I suggest KQML.
    > >
    > > The unlimited communication makes the simulation not a multi-agent
    > > problem but a single-controller problem. The unlimitation enables
    > > agents to share information and their decision. Multi-agent systems are
    > > more appropriate for RoboCup-Rescue, originated by RoboCup-Soccer.
    > >
    > > On the other hand, to simulate or to exceed human intelligence is the
    > > great goal of AI. The main purpose of the competion is to provide an
    > > evaluation of AI methods, so it is a good choice to try to simulate
    > > human's restriction.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Tetsuhiko Koto
    > > koto@takopen.cs.uec.ac.jp
    > >
    > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 06:37:53 GMT