View - ResearchGate

Socially Situated Planning 183will be made clearer in the discussion below. These social control programscan be viewed as defining a finite state machine that changes the state of the setof control primitives based on features of the social context. In the examplesin this chapter this state machine is defined in terms of a set of condition actionrules, although in one application these state transitions have been formalizedin terms of STRIPS-style planning operators and the social-program actuallysynthesized by the planning system [2].2. IllustrationThis approach has been used to model the behavior of military organizations[2] but the following contrived example provides a clearer view of the capabilitiesof the system. In this example, two synthetic characters, Jack and Steve,interact in the service of their own conflicting goals. The interaction is determineddynamically as the agents interact with each other, but is also informedby static information (e.g. the social stance they take towards one another).These agents are embodied in a distributed virtual environment developedby Rickel and Johnson [6] that provides a set of perceptual, communicative andmotor processes to control 3D avatars (see figure 22.1) that gesture and exhibitfacial expressions. The agents share task knowledge encoded as STRIPS-styleoperators. They know how to drive vehicles to different locations, how to surf,and how to buy lottery tickets. They also have individual differences. Theyhave differing goals, have varying social status and view their relationship witheach other differently.Figure 22.1.The 3D avatars Jack and Steve.Jack’s goal is to make money. Steve wants to surf. Both agents developdifferent plans but have to contend with a shared resource (a car). Besides