DTank: An environment for architectural comparisons of competitive agents

Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization - 14th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 223-230

  Morgan, Geoffrey P ^a   Ritter, Frank E ^a   Stevenson, William E ^a   Schenck, Ian N ^a   Cohen, Mark A ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent architectures; Simulation environments

Indexed keywords

AGENT ARCHITECTURES; AGENT BEHAVIOR; ATTACK BEHAVIOR; COGNITIVE MODEL; COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT; EMERGENT BEHAVIORS; JAVA-BASED SIMULATION; MODELING TOOL; SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT;

ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84865341740     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Amant, R. S., & Riedl, M. O. (2001). A perception/action substrate for cognitive modeling in HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 15-39.
2. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. AOS. (2004). JACK intelligent agents. Victoria Australia: Agent Oriented Software Pty. Ltd.
4. Arnold, K., Gosling, J., & Holmes, D. (2000). The Java programming language (3rd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
5. Cohen, M. A., Ritter, F. E., & Haynes, S. R. (In Press). Herbal: A high-level language and development environment for developing cognitive models in Soar. In the 14th Conference for Behavioral Representation in Modeling Simulations (BRIMS).
6. Councill, I. G., Haynes, S. R., & Ritter, F. E. (2003). Explaining Soar: Analysis of existing tools and user information requirements. In F. Detje, D. Doerner & H. Schaub (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. (pp. 63-68). Bamberg, Germany: Universitats-Verlag Bamberg.
7. Councill, I. G., Morgan, G. P., & Ritter, F. E. (2004). dTank: A competitive environment for distributed agents (Tech. Report No. 2004-1): Applied Cognitive Science Lab, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State.
8. Friedman-Hill, E. (2003). Jess in action: Rule-based systems in Java: Manning Publications Company.
9. Gluck, K. A., & Pew, R. W. (2001). Lessons learned and future directions for the AMBR model comparison project. In The 10th Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation Conference (10TH-CGF-067) (pp. 113-121). Orlando, FL: Division of Continuing Education, University of Central Florida.
10. Haynes, S. R., Ritter, F. E., Councill, I. G., & Cohen, M. A. (Submitted). Explaining intelligent agents. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.
11. Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Norling, E., & Ritter, F. E. (2004). A parameter set to support psychologically plausible variability in agent-based human modeling. In The Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS04) (pp. 758-765). New York, NY: ACM.
13. Sun, S., Councill, I. G., Fan, X., Ritter, F. E., & Yen, J. (2004). Comparing teamwork modeling in an empirical approach. In International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Tor, K., Ritter, F. E., Haynes, S. R., & Cohen, M. A. (2004). CaDaDis: A tool for displaying the behavior of cognitive models and agents. In 13th Conference on Behavior Representation and Simulation (pp. 192-200). Orlando, FL: U. of Central Florida.
15. Yen, J., Yin, J., Ioerger, T. R., Miller, M. S., Xu, D., & Volz, R. A. (2001). CAST: Collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. In Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1135-1142). Seattle, WA.
16. Yost, G. R., & Rothenfluh, T. R. (1996). Configuring elevator systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44, 521-568.