一个面向异构多UUV协作任务的分层式控制系统

针对异构多UUV协作任务,提出了基于多智能体系统的分层式体系结构(MAHA).在个体层面,将UUV智能体的思维状态分为社会心智和个体心智两个层次分别实现,更加符合人类社会协作模式;在群体层面,提出了复杂海洋环境下UUV群体结构的评价准则,并据此将MAHA与现有结构进行了对比分析.此外,利用面向对象的Petri网理论建立了系统的协作模型,有效降低了系统建模的复杂性.最后,水下多目标搜索使命的实例研究表明,MAHA能够保证异构UUV之间进行有效的协作.

3-7岁儿童对情景化习俗道义情境中社会行为的认知发展

Children’s understanding of deontic rules and theory of mind (ToM) were the two research domains for children’s social cognition. It was significant for understanding children’s social cognition to combine the researches in the two domains. Children at 3, 5 and 7years were required to answer three questions according to the stories which happened in children’s familiar context. The three questions were designed to address the three problems:⑴Development of 3-7-Year-old children’s understanding about how the deontic rules were enacted or changed.⑵ Development of 3-7-Year-old children’s understanding about that the deontic rules and the actor’s mental states could impact on his behaviors.⑶ Development of 3-7-Year-old children’s capacity to integrate the deontic rules and mental state to evaluate the actor’s behavior. The results showed that: ① The 3-7-Year-old children had known that deontic rules were established by the authority’s speech act. But there were still some irrelevant factors which influenced the children’s judgments, such as the authority’s desire. ② The children gradually recognized the relationship between actors should do something and they will do the same thing. 3-year-old children could recognize such relationship in a way, but their predictions were usually influenced by some irrelevant factors. The children at 5 and 7 years old understood this relationship more steady. ③ In deontic context, more and more children predicted the actors’ behaviors according to the actors’ mental states as they grown up. The ratio that the 3-7-Year-old children predicted the actors’ behavior according to their false belief about the deontic rules was smaller in deontic context compared with the children’s performance in traditional false belief task. This maybe indicated that the deontic context influenced the children’s inference stronger than the physical context. ④ When they could get the actors’ desires and the deontic rules, all the children could predict the actors’ behaviors according to their desires, but not the deontic rules. It meant that all the children could understand that the actors’ desire mediated between the deontic rules and their behaviors. But when the actors wanted to transgress the deontic rules, all the children’s predications became less accurate. ⑤ When they assigned criticism, more and more children could discriminate different behaviors as a result of diverse mental states although they all transgressed the deontic rules. But the most part of children overweighed the deontic rules but overlooked the actors’ mental state about the deontic rules; their criticism to behaviors which transgressed the deontic rules just differ in quantity according to diverse mental states, that is: if the actors known the rules or want to transgress the rules, then punished more, and if the actors didn’t know the rules or transgress the rules accidentally, then punished a little.