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