CSCE 475/896

Seminar Assignment

November 18, 2003

Introduction

The objective of this assignment is to let every group (1) learn to present a paper well and (2) learn to participate in a seminar well. So it is more than a presentation. It is a seminar where you are required to ask good questions and answer questions well.

Setup

I will post a sheet on the bulletin board outside my office. Please sign up with your group name and the paper that you choose to present. Every group must present a different paper from the others. So, the sooner you sign up, the more likely you will get to present the papers that you want to present.

Grading:

(1) 40% Summary of Paper

(2) 15% Organization (Time management, flow of presentation, poise, etc.)

(3) 20% Conclusions (Comparisons, insights, etc.)

(4) 25% Q&A and Participation

Papers

You are required to choose one of the following papers. I have the electronic copies of the following papers. If you want one, let me know.

Multiagent Systems

M1. Huhns, M. N. and M. P. Singh (1999). A Multiagent Treatment of Agenthood, Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2):3-10. (hughsingh1999.pdf)

M2. Pynadath, D. and M. Tambe (2002). The Communicative Multiagent Team Decision Problem: Analyzing Teamwork Theories and Models, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1(6):389-423. (pynadathtambe2002.pdf)

Negotiations and Cooperation

N1. Faratin, P., C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings (1998). Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents, Int. Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3-4):159-182. (faratinetal1998.pdf)

N2. Faratin, P., C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings (2002). Using Similarity Criteria to Make Issue Trade-Offs in Automated Negotiations, Artificial Intelligence, 142:205-237. (faratinetal2002.pdf)

N3. Grosz, B. and S. Kraus (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action, Artificial Intelligence, 86(2):269-357. (groszkraus1996.pdf)

N4. Grosz, B. J. and S. Kraus (1998). The evolution of SharedPlans, in Rao, A. and M. Wooldridge (eds.) Foundations and Theories of Rational Agency, Kluwer Academic Publishing. (groszkraus1998.pdf)

N5. Grosz, B. J., S. Kraus, D. G. Sullivan, and S. Das (2002). The Influence of Social Norms and Social Consciousness on Intention Reconciliation, Artificial Intelligence, 142:147-177. (groszetal2002.pdf)

N6. Parsons, S., C. Sierra and N. R. Jennings (1998). Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing, Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261-292. (parsonsetal1998.pdf)

N7. Sandip, S. (2002). Believing Others: Pros and Cons, Artificial Intelligence, 142:179-203 (sandip2002.pdf)

N8. Stone, P., M. L. Littman, S. Singh, and M. Kearns (2001). ATTac-2000: An Adaptive Autonomous Bidding Agent, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 15:189-206.

Swarm

S1. Tarasewich, P. and P. R. McMullen (2002). Swarm Intelligence: Power in Numbers, Communications of the ACM, 45(8):62-67.

S2. Dorigo, M., V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni (1996). The Ant System: Optimization by a Colony of Cooperating Agents, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B, 26(1):1-13. (dorigoetal1996.pdf)

Robots

R1. Bojinov, H., A. Casal, T. Hogg (2002). Multiagent Control of Self-Configurable Robots, Artificial Intelligence, 142:99-120. (bojinovetal2002.pdf)

Learning

L1. Bowling, M. and M. Veloso (2002). Multiagent Learning Using a Variable Learning Rate, Artificial Intelligence, 136:215-250. (bowlingveloso2002.pdf)

L2. Ontañón, S. and Enric Plaza (2003). Collaborative Case Retention Strategies for CBR Agents, Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR’03), LNAI 2689, July, 392-406. (ontanonplaza2002.pdf)

L3. Stone, P. and M. Veloso (2000). Multiagent Systems: A Survey from a Machine Learning Perspective, Autonomous Robots, 8(3):345-383. Also appears as Carnegie Mellon University CS technical report number CMU-CS-97-193. December, 1997. (stoneveloso2000.ps)

L4. Vidal, J. M. and E. H. Durfee (2003). Predicting the Expected Behavior of Agents that Learn about Agents: The CLRI Framework, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 6(1):77-107. (vidaldurfee2003.pdf)

Real-Time

R1. Stone, P. and M. Veloso (1999). Task Decomposition, Dynamic Role Assignment, and Low-Bandwidth Communication for Real-Time Strategic Teamwork, Artificial Intelligence, 100(2):241-273. (stoneveloso1999.ps)

Monitoring

MO1. Kaminka, G. A., D. V. Pynadath, and M. Tambe (2002). Monitoring Teams by Overhearing: A Multi-Agent Plan-Recognition Approach, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17:83-135. (kaminkaetal2002.pdf)

MO2. Wilkins, D. E., T. J. Lee, and P. Berry (2003). Interactive Execution Monitoring of Agent Teams, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 18:217-261. (wilkinsetal2003.pdf)

Mobile Agents

MA1. Fuggetta, A., G. P. Picco, and G. Vigna (1998). Understanding Code Mobility, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(5):42-361. (fuggettaetal1998.pdf)

Requirements

Each group is required to give a presentation of no more than 25 minutes (the talk itself). Both members of the group must present roughly the same amount of materials. During the seminar (Q&A), both members are required to answer questions. If only one of you answers the question, the group will be penalized. I will also ask some questions. The length of the Q&A depends on the time we have and the number of questions.

Every group is required to ask at least one question in each presentation (except for their own presentation).

Every group is required to give me an electronic copy of their presentation at least 3 hours before the class starts on the day of their seminar. So I can make copies for all students.