Coalition formation is a key capability in multi-agent systems. An important problem in coalition formation is coalition structure generation: partitioning agents into coalitions to optimize the social welfare. This is a challenging problem that has been the subject of active research for the past three decades. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm, SMART, for the problem based on a hybridization of three innovative techniques. Two of these techniques are based on dynamic programming, where we show a powerful connection between the coalitions selected for evaluation and the performance of the algorithms. These algorithms use offline phases to optimize the choice of coalitions to evaluate. The third one uses branch-and-bound and integer partition graph search to explore the solution space. Our techniques bring a new way of approaching the problem and a new level of precision to the field. In experiments over several common value distributions, we show that the hybridization of these techniques in SMART is faster than the fastest prior algorithms (ODP-IP, BOSS) in generating optimal solutions across all the value distributions.

This paper introduces a novel control methodology designed to guide a collective of robotic-sheep in a cluttered and unknown environment using robotic-dogs. The dog-agents continuously scan the environment and compute a safe trajectory to guide the sheep to their final destination. The proposed optimization-based controller guarantees that the sheep reside within a desired distance from the reference trajectory through the use of Control Barrier Functions (CBF). Additional CBF constraints are employed simultaneously to ensure inter-agent and obstacle collision avoidance. The efficacy of the proposed approach is rigorously tested in simulation, which demonstrates the successful herding of the robotic-sheep within complex and cluttered environments.

A cooperative salvo strategy is proposed in this paper which achieves consensus among the interceptors within a pre-defined arbitrary settling time. Considering non-linear engagement kinematics and a system lag to capture the effect of interceptor autopilot as present in realistic interception scenarios, the guidance schemes use the time-to-go estimates of the interceptors in order to achieve simultaneous interception of a stationary target at a pre-determined impact time. The guidance scheme ensures that consensus among the time-to-go estimates of the interceptors is achieved within a settling time whose upper bound can be pre-specified arbitrarily independent of the initial conditions or design parameters. The efficacy of the proposed guidance strategy is demonstrated using numerical simulations with varied conditions of initial position, velocities and heading angle errors of the interceptors as well as different desired impact times.

What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world.

In recent years, agents have become capable of communicating seamlessly via natural language and navigating in environments that involve cooperation and competition, a fact that can introduce social dilemmas. Due to the interleaving of cooperation and competition, understanding agents' decision-making in such environments is challenging, and humans can benefit from obtaining explanations. However, such environments and scenarios have rarely been explored in the context of explainable AI. While some explanation methods for cooperative environments can be applied in mixed-motive setups, they do not address inter-agent competition, cheap-talk, or implicit communication by actions. In this work, we design explanation methods to address these issues. Then, we proceed to establish generality and demonstrate the applicability of the methods to three games with vastly different properties. Lastly, we demonstrate the effectiveness and usefulness of the methods for humans in two mixed-motive games. The first is a challenging 7-player game called no-press Diplomacy. The second is a 3-player game inspired by the prisoner's dilemma, featuring communication in natural language.

Recent studies have delved into constructing generalist agents for open-world embodied environments like Minecraft. Despite the encouraging results, existing efforts mainly focus on solving basic programmatic tasks, e.g., material collection and tool-crafting following the Minecraft tech-tree, treating the ObtainDiamond task as the ultimate goal. This limitation stems from the narrowly defined set of actions available to agents, requiring them to learn effective long-horizon strategies from scratch. Consequently, discovering diverse gameplay opportunities in the open world becomes challenging. In this work, we introduce ODYSSEY, a new framework that empowers Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents with open-world skills to explore the vast Minecraft world. ODYSSEY comprises three key parts: (1) An interactive agent with an open-world skill library that consists of 40 primitive skills and 183 compositional skills. (2) A fine-tuned LLaMA-3 model trained on a large question-answering dataset with 390k+ instruction entries derived from the Minecraft Wiki. (3) A new open-world benchmark includes thousands of long-term planning tasks, tens of dynamic-immediate planning tasks, and one autonomous exploration task. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed ODYSSEY framework can effectively evaluate the planning and exploration capabilities of agents. All datasets, model weights, and code are publicly available to motivate future research on more advanced autonomous agent solutions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in causal discovery tasks by utilizing their vast expert knowledge from extensive text corpora. However, the multi-agent capabilities of LLMs in causal discovery remain underexplored. This paper introduces a general framework to investigate this potential. The first is the Meta Agents Model, which relies exclusively on reasoning and discussions among LLM agents to conduct causal discovery. The second is the Coding Agents Model, which leverages the agents' ability to plan, write, and execute code, utilizing advanced statistical libraries for causal discovery. The third is the Hybrid Model, which integrates both the Meta Agents Model and Coding Agents Model approaches, combining the statistical analysis and reasoning skills of multiple agents. Our proposed framework shows promising results by effectively utilizing LLMs' expert knowledge, reasoning capabilities, multi-agent cooperation, and statistical causal methods. By exploring the multi-agent potential of LLMs, we aim to establish a foundation for further research in utilizing LLMs multi-agent for solving causal-related problems.

We study a collaborative learning problem where $m$ agents estimate a vector $\mu\in\mathbb{R}^d$ by collecting samples from normal distributions, with each agent $i$ incurring a cost $c_{i,k} \in (0, \infty]$ to sample from the $k^{\text{th}}$ distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2)$. Instead of working on their own, agents can collect data that is cheap to them, and share it with others in exchange for data that is expensive or even inaccessible to them, thereby simultaneously reducing data collection costs and estimation error. However, when agents have different collection costs, we need to first decide how to fairly divide the work of data collection so as to benefit all agents. Moreover, in naive sharing protocols, strategic agents may under-collect and/or fabricate data, leading to socially undesirable outcomes. Our mechanism addresses these challenges by combining ideas from cooperative and non-cooperative game theory. We use ideas from axiomatic bargaining to divide the cost of data collection. Given such a solution, we develop a Nash incentive-compatible (NIC) mechanism to enforce truthful reporting. We achieve a $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m})$ approximation to the minimum social penalty (sum of agent estimation errors and data collection costs) in the worst case, and a $\mathcal{O}(1)$ approximation under favorable conditions. We complement this with a hardness result, showing that $\Omega(\sqrt{m})$ is unavoidable in any NIC mechanism.

Contemporary artificial intelligence systems are pivotal in enhancing human efficiency and safety across various domains. One such domain is autonomous systems, especially in automotive and defense use cases. Artificial intelligence brings learning and enhanced decision-making to autonomy system goal-oriented behaviors and human independence. However, the lack of clear understanding of autonomy system capabilities hampers human-machine or machine-machine interaction and interdiction. This necessitates varying degrees of human involvement for safety, accountability, and explainability purposes. Yet, measuring the level autonomous capability in an autonomous system presents a challenge. Two scales of measurement exist, yet measuring autonomy presupposes a variety of elements not available in the wild. This is why existing measures for level of autonomy are operationalized only during design or test and evaluation phases. No measure for level of autonomy based on observed system behavior exists at this time. To address this, we outline a potential measure for predicting level of autonomy using observable actions. We also present an algorithm incorporating the proposed measure. The measure and algorithm have significance to researchers and practitioners interested in a method to blind compare autonomous systems at runtime. Defense-based implementations are likewise possible because counter-autonomy depends on robust identification of autonomous systems.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has recently excelled in solving challenging cooperative and competitive multi-agent problems in various environments with, mostly, few agents and full observability. Moreover, a range of crucial robotics-related tasks, such as multi-robot navigation and obstacle avoidance, that have been conventionally approached with the classical non-learnable methods (e.g., heuristic search) is currently suggested to be solved by the learning-based or hybrid methods. Still, in this domain, it is hard, not to say impossible, to conduct a fair comparison between classical, learning-based, and hybrid approaches due to the lack of a unified framework that supports both learning and evaluation. To this end, we introduce POGEMA, a set of comprehensive tools that includes a fast environment for learning, a generator of problem instances, the collection of pre-defined ones, a visualization toolkit, and a benchmarking tool that allows automated evaluation. We introduce and specify an evaluation protocol defining a range of domain-related metrics computed on the basics of the primary evaluation indicators (such as success rate and path length), allowing a fair multi-fold comparison. The results of such a comparison, which involves a variety of state-of-the-art MARL, search-based, and hybrid methods, are presented.