Cognitive Agents for Sense and Respond Logistics

  • Kshanti Greene
  • David G. Cooper
  • Anna L. Buczak
  • Michael Czajkowski
  • Jeffrey L. Vagle
  • Martin O. Hofmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3890)


We present a novel cognitive agent architecture and demonstrate its effectiveness in the Sense and Respond Logistics (SRL) domain. SRL transforms the static, hierarchical architectures of traditional military models into re-configurable networks designed to encourage coordination among small peer units. Multi-agent systems are ideal for SRL because they can provide valuable automation and decision support from low-level control to high-level information synchronization. In particular, agents can be aware of and adapt to changes in the environment that may affect control and decision making. Our architecture, the Engine for Composable Logical Agents with Intuitive Reorganization (ECLAIR) is a framework for enabling rapid development of coherent agent systems that adapt to their environment once deployed. ECLAIR is based on cognitive theories for motivation and adaptation, including Piaget’s Assimilation and Accommodation [21] and Damasio’s Somatic Marker Hypothesis [6]. To demonstrate our preliminary work, we implemented a simple simulation environment where our agents handle the ordering and delivery of supplies among operational and supply units in several scenarios requiring adaptation of default behavior.


Cognitive Agent Cognitive Architecture Adaptivity Module Agent Architecture Somatic Marker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C.: An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review 111(4), 1036–1060 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buczak, A.L., Cooper, D.G., Hofmann, M.O.: Evolutionary platform for agent learning. In: Proceedings of the Intelligent Engineering Systems Through Artificial Neural Networks, New York, vol. 14, pp. 157–164. ASME Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buczak, A.L., Greene, K., Cooper, D.G., Czajkowski, M., Hofmann, M.O.: A cognitive agent architecture optimized for adaptivity. In: Submission to Artificial Neural Networks in Engineering, ANNIE 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, D.G.: Context based shared understanding for situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the MSS National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion, 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czajkowski, M., Buczak, A.L., Hofmann, M.O.: Dynamic agent composition from semantic web services. In: Bussler, C.J., Tannen, V., Fundulaki, I. (eds.) SWDB 2004. LNCS, vol. 3372, pp. 27–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damasio, A.R.: Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G.P. Putnam, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, K.S., Sycara, K.: Intelligent adaptive information agents. In: Imam, I. (ed.) Working Notes of the AAAI 1996 Workshop on Intelligent Adaptive Agents, Portland, OR (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Defense and the National Interest. Fourth Generation Warfare,
  9. 9.
    Franke, J., Satterfield, B., Jameson, S.: Information sharing in teams of selfaware entities. In: Proceedings of the The Second International Workshop on Multi-Robot Systems NRL (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerken, P., Jameson, S., Sidharta, B., Barton, J.: Improving army aviation situational awareness with agent-based data discovery. In: Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haynes, T., Wainwright, R., Sen, S.: Evolving cooperation strategies. In: Lesser, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi–Agent Systems, San Francisco, CA. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helsinger, A., Thome, M., Wright, T.: Cougaar: a scalable, distributed multiagent architecture. In: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 2, pp. 1910–1917. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ioerger, T.R., Volz, R.A., Yen, J.: Modeling cooperative, reactive behaviors on the battlefield using intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the The Ninth Conference on Computer Generated Forces (9th CGF), pp. 13–23 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, R.M., Laird, J.E., Nielsen, P.E., Coulter, K.J., Kenny, P., Koss, F.V.: Automated intelligent pilots for combat flight simulation. AI Magazine 20(1), 27–41 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaelbling, L.P., Littman, M.L., Moore, A.W.: Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 237–285 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, R.L.: Coginitive theory, soar. Tech. rep., Ohio State University, Department of Computer Science (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Littman, M.L.: Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Machine Learning (ML 1994), New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 157–163. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories. Cooperative Agents for Specific Tasks (CAST),
  20. 20.
    Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories,
  21. 21.
    Miller, P.H.: Theories of Development Psychology. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nason, S., Laird, J.E.: Soar-rl: Integrating reinforcement learning with soar. Tech. rep., University of Michigan (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Office of Force Transformation, United States Department of Defense. Operational Sense and Respond Logistics: Coevolution of an Adaptive Enterprise Capability (2004); Concept document in progressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon, S.J.: The art of military logistics. Communications of the ACM 44(6), 62–66 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sutton, R.S.: Reinforcement learning: Past, present and future. In: McKay, B., Yao, X., Newton, C.S., Kim, J.-H., Furuhashi, T. (eds.) SEAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1585, pp. 195–197. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wood, R.J.: Information engineering; the foundation of information warfare. Tech. rep., Air War College, Air University (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kshanti Greene
    • 1
  • David G. Cooper
    • 1
  • Anna L. Buczak
    • 2
  • Michael Czajkowski
    • 1
  • Jeffrey L. Vagle
    • 1
  • Martin O. Hofmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology LaboratoriesCherry HillUSA
  2. 2.Sarnoff CorporationPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations