A Taxonomy of Hierarchical Multi-Agent Systems: Design Patterns, Coordination Mechanisms, and Industrial Applications

David J. Moore

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

A Taxonomy of Hierarchical Multi-Agent Systems: Design Patterns, Coordination Mechanisms, and Industrial Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A five-axis taxonomy unifies how hierarchical multi-agent systems are designed and compared.

desk verdict A clearly written taxonomy paper that recombines known axes into a coherent whole; it needs tempering of the novelty claim and more operational definitions before it becomes a usable framework. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12683 v1 pith:E5CF5GFM submitted 2025-08-18 cs.MA cs.AI

David J. Moore This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.MAcs.AI

keywords hierarchicalmulti-agentsystemstaxonomycoordinationmechanismscontrolhierarchyinformationflowroledelegationtemporalcommunicationstructure

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Hierarchical multi-agent systems (HMAS) are widespread, but no single dimension—centralization alone, for example—captures what makes one design work better than another. This paper argues that any HMAS can be characterized along five relatively independent axes: control hierarchy, information flow, role and task delegation, temporal layering, and communication structure. Against this grid, the paper maps familiar coordination mechanisms (contract nets, auctions, consensus, teamwork models, organizational rules) and shows how real systems in power grids, oil fields, warehouses, and human-agent operations centers occupy different positions in the design space. The intended payoff is practical: system architects can use the taxonomy to compare alternatives, spot mismatches between structure and coordination mechanism, and identify trade-offs before building. The paper presents the taxonomy as the first to unify structural, temporal, and communication dimensions of HMAS in one framework.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-axis taxonomy itself: Control Hierarchy (centralized–decentralized–hybrid), Information Flow (top-down, bottom-up, peer-to-peer), Role and Task Delegation (fixed vs. emergent roles), Temporal Hierarchy (long-horizon vs. short-horizon decision layers), and Communication Structure (static vs. dynamic networks). Its role in the argument is classificatory and analytical: it provides a shared vocabulary for placing existing HMAS designs, maps coordination mechanisms onto that design space, and exposes trade-offs (e.g., a strict hierarchy eases explainability but introduces a single point of failure; dynamic roles improve adaptivity but threaten predictability). The

What would settle it

Have a set of practitioners independently classify a dozen deployed HMAS (smart-grid controllers, warehouse fleets, drilling advisory systems) along the five axes and measure inter-rater agreement. If classifications diverge systematically—especially between information flow and communication structure, or between control and role delegation—the axes are not separable and the framework reduces to a checklist rather than an analytic lens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 'hierarchical multi-agent system' is not one pattern but a design space with at least five distinguishable axes: who holds authority (control), which direction knowledge and directives travel (information flow), whether roles are fixed or learned (role/task delegation), whether decision layers operate on different time scales (temporal hierarchy), and whether the communication topology is static or rewiring. The paper treats these as separable lenses rather than a prescriptive checklist, and asserts that effective HMAS design is context-dependent: no single hierarchy is best. It supports this by aligning each axis with coordination mechanisms—e.g., contract nets pre

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy's usefulness rests on the claim that the five axes—control, information flow, roles, temporal layering, and communication—are well-enough defined and independent that the same system can be classified consistently by different cataloguers; the paper itself concedes the axes are 'not entirely independent'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Designers can place any HMAS in the five-axis space and see which coordination mechanisms are compatible with their structural choices; e.g., auctions need a broker, consensus needs peer-to-peer links.
Mismatches between structure and mechanism—running decentralized consensus inside a strict command hierarchy, or a fixed-auction protocol over a dynamic network—should be diagnosable before deployment as poor fit.
Hierarchical structures can yield global efficiency while preserving local autonomy, but the balance is delicate; the taxonomy makes the influencing factors explicit.
Open problems follow from the framework: explainability upward, scaling to very large populations, and safe integration of learned or LLM-based agents.
The oil and gas case suggests industrial HMAS adoption is limited less by technical feasibility than by trust, integration with legacy systems, and demonstrated reliability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the axes are truly separable, the taxonomy could be turned into an empirical instrument: having practitioners classify a fixed set of deployed HMAS would produce a reliability check on the framework.
The mapping between axes and coordination mechanisms suggests a design rule the paper does not fully formalize: a mechanism's assumptions (fixed broker, peer graph, static roles) delimit the region of taxonomy space where it can work.
Applied to LLM-based agents, the taxonomy provides a way to ask which axis an LLM should occupy—advisory top layer, translator between humans and machines, or dynamic role negotiator—and what safety governors must sit above it.
Dynamic-communication and emergent-role axes may be the hardest to separate in practice; a testable extension would be to measure how often role changes correlate with topology changes in deployed systems.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a readable survey that proposes a five-axis taxonomy for hierarchical MAS. The axes themselves are not new — they draw on prior work the paper itself cites, including Dudek et al., Horling and Lesser, and Händler. The 'first unified taxonomy' claim is not defended against those predecessors. That said, the paper does a real service by organizing these dimensions into one place and connecting them to concrete coordination mechanisms and industrial cases. The writing is clear, the structure is logical, and the author is honest about trade-offs. The sections on smart grids and oil and gas are grounded and bring the taxonomy to life.

The soft spots are significant. The axes lack operational definitions. There is no classification protocol, no inter-rater reliability, and no systematic application to a corpus of systems. The stress-test note is on target: the axes are demonstrably entangled. Section 2.2 says top-down flow 'aligns with centralized control.' Section 2.4 uses the same FMH manager–worker example as Section 2.1. Section 2.5 concedes that information flow and communication structure are 'related but not identical' without specifying where one ends and the other begins. The paper itself admits the axes are 'not entirely independent' but never tells readers how to handle dependencies when classifying a real system. Section 3.3 maps only clean archetypes, not the messy mixed cases that appear in Section 4. As a result, the taxonomy as presented is a set of labels rather than an analytic lens.

This is fixable. The author should add a comparison table with prior taxonomies, temper the novelty claim to 'a unified framework' rather than 'the first,' and give at least one worked example of classifying a non-clean system with explicit decision rules. The paper is a position piece, not a validated framework, but it is a genuinely useful one for practitioners and researchers looking for a shared vocabulary. I would send it to peer review; a good reviewer can push for the operationalization. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would keep it on the shelf as a starting point for a more rigorous treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a qualitative taxonomy of hierarchical multi-agent systems (HMAS) along five axes: control hierarchy, information flow, role/task delegation, temporal hierarchy, and communication structure. It argues that these axes provide a unifying design framework for comparing HMAS, connects the axes to classical and modern coordination mechanisms (contract nets, auctions, consensus, teamwork models, hierarchical RL, LLM-based agents), and illustrates the framework with industrial applications in smart grids, oil and gas operations, warehouse logistics, and human-agent operations centers. The abstract and introduction claim that this is the first taxonomy to unify structural, temporal, and communication dimensions into a single framework. The paper is entirely qualitative; it makes no formal or empirical claims and validates the taxonomy only through selected examples.

Significance. If the five-axis framework were operationalized, it could serve as a useful conceptual scaffold for designers and researchers, especially at a time when hierarchical and hybrid MAS are receiving renewed attention. The paper's strengths are its broad literature synthesis, its deliberate connection of taxonomy axes to concrete coordination mechanisms, and its rich set of industrial vignettes, particularly in energy and oilfield operations. These examples give the taxonomy intuitive face validity. However, the central claim — that the five axes form a single usable design framework — is not supported by evidence that the taxonomy can be applied consistently. The absence of operational definitions, a classification procedure, or inter-rater validation means that the main contribution is currently a set of well-illustrated labels rather than an analytic lens. The novelty claim also needs verification through explicit comparison with prior taxonomies.

major comments (3)

[§2.1–2.5, esp. §2.2, §2.4, §2.5; §3.3] The load-bearing assertion is that the five axes form a single design framework for comparing HMAS. For that to hold, each axis must be well-defined and separable in practice. The paper gives spectra and examples but no operational definitions, decision rules, or classification protocol. The axes are admittedly 'not entirely independent', and in several places they visibly collapse into one another: §2.2 states that top-down information flow 'aligns with centralized control'; §2.4 uses the same FMH manager–worker example used for control hierarchy in §2.1; and §2.5 says information flow and communication structure are 'related but not identical' without specifying where one ends and the other begins. Because the paper never tells readers how to handle these dependencies, a practitioner cannot reproducibly classify a real system. This is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation issue: witho
[Abstract and §1] The paper claims to present 'the first taxonomy that unifies structural, temporal, and communication dimensions of hierarchical MAS into a single design framework.' This novelty claim is central to the contribution but is not substantiated. The paper cites Horling and Lesser (2004) and Dudek et al. (1996) in §3.2 but does not systematically compare its five axes against them; Händler (2023), an LLM-agent taxonomy discussed later, is also not positioned dimension-by-dimension. To make the contribution assessable, the authors should add a related-work comparison that states explicitly what each prior taxonomy covers and how the proposed five-axis framework extends or differs from it.
[§3.3 and §4] The mapping in §3.3 uses only clean archetypes: swarm flocking, firefighting teams, and smart grid management. The industrial systems described in §4 are messier — for instance, §4.3's warehouse system combines central task assignment with dynamic local negotiation among robots, and §4.4's emergency-response system mixes humans, robots, and learning agents. The paper does not demonstrate that the taxonomy can handle these mixed cases, which are precisely the cases a design framework is expected to clarify. The authors should apply the taxonomy to at least one genuinely mixed or ambiguous case from §4, or provide a systematic mapping table of all Section 4 examples, optionally with a small inter-rater consistency check.

minor comments (5)

[§4, first sentence of §4.2 or nearby] The phrase 'as requested' in the discussion of oil and gas operations is unusual in a scholarly manuscript and should be removed or rephrased; it suggests an undisclosed commissioning context.
[§1] Typo: 'this papers categorization approach' should be 'this paper's categorization approach'.
[References] Several references contain mojibake in journal titles and author names (e.g., Bellifemine et al., Dorling et al., Hanga and Kovalchuk, Händler 2023). The LaTeX/arXiv source encoding should be fixed.
[Abstract and §6] The abstract hedges with 'appears to be the first taxonomy', while §6 asserts 'proposing a new taxonomy'. Make the novelty claim consistent in strength.
[§1, funding sentence] The sentence reporting '€12.2 billion' contains a stray '�' character; fix the encoding. Also, a citation or source note for this market figure would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the taxonomy is descriptive and contains no derivation-to-input reduction.

full rationale

The paper proposes a qualitative five-axis taxonomy for hierarchical multi-agent systems and maps coordination mechanisms and industrial examples onto it. It contains no formal derivation, no fitted parameters, and no predictions; the axes are introduced as analytic viewpoints and explicitly acknowledged as 'not entirely independent,' which is a caveat about separability rather than a circular reduction. The claim of being 'the first taxonomy that unifies structural, temporal, and communication dimensions' is an unsupported novelty assertion and should be evaluated as a correctness/evidence concern, not circularity. The author does not cite prior work by the same author for any load-bearing premise, so there is no self-citation chain. No equation, definition, or classification in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own inputs by construction. The taxonomy's validation by the author's own selected examples is weak inductive evidence, but it is not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The taxonomy draws on standard MAS concepts and the author's industrial experience. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The main assumptions are that the five axes capture the relevant design space and that the selected case studies are representative.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The five axes (control hierarchy, information flow, role/task delegation, temporal hierarchy, communication structure) are sufficient and nearly independent to characterize HMAS design.
Section 2 introduces these five axes as the design space and admits they are not entirely independent, yet relies on their separability for the taxonomy to be useful.
domain assumption Hierarchical structures in agent systems map usefully onto human organizational hierarchies, so concepts like span of control and chain of command transfer.
Section 1 draws analogy to human organizations and uses it to motivate the taxonomy; if the analogy fails, some design guidance is misleading.
domain assumption The selected industrial examples (smart grid, oil and gas, warehouse, human-in-the-loop) are representative enough to illustrate the taxonomy's value.
Section 4 uses these cases to demonstrate practical relevance, but they are chosen partly from the author's expertise and 'as requested' (Section 4.2), not systematically.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Taxonomy of Hierarchical Multi-Agent Systems: Design Patterns, Coordination Mechanisms, and Industrial Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5CF5GFM

@misc{pith2026250812683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Taxonomy of Hierarchical Multi-Agent Systems: Design Patterns, Coordination Mechanisms, and Industrial Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5CF5GFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12683}
}

read the original abstract

Hierarchical multi-agent systems (HMAS) organize collections of agents into layered structures that help manage complexity and scale. These hierarchies can simplify coordination, but they also can introduce trade-offs that are not always obvious. This paper proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy for HMAS along five axes: control hierarchy, information flow, role and task delegation, temporal layering, and communication structure. The intent is not to prescribe a single "best" design but to provide a lens for comparing different approaches. Rather than treating these dimensions in isolation, the taxonomy is connected to concrete coordination mechanisms - from the long-standing contract-net protocol for task allocation to more recent work in hierarchical reinforcement learning. Industrial contexts illustrate the framework, including power grids and oilfield operations, where agents at production, maintenance, and supply levels coordinate to diagnose well issues or balance energy demand. These cases suggest that hierarchical structures may achieve global efficiency while preserving local autonomy, though the balance is delicate. The paper closes by identifying open challenges: making hierarchical decisions explainable to human operators, scaling to very large agent populations, and assessing whether learning-based agents such as large language models can be safely integrated into layered frameworks. This paper presents what appears to be the first taxonomy that unifies structural, temporal, and communication dimensions of hierarchical MAS into a single design framework, bridging classical coordination mechanisms with modern reinforcement learning and large language model agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

How to build multi agent ai system, June 2025

Aalpha. How to build multi agent ai system, June 2025. URL https://www.aalpha.net/blog/how-to-build-multi-agent-ai-system/

work page 2025
[2]

Feudal multi-agent hierarchies for cooperative reinforcement learning

Sanjeevan Ahilan and Peter Dayan. Feudal multi-agent hierarchies for cooperative reinforcement learning. arXiv:1901.08492 [cs.MA], January 2019

arXiv 1901
[3]

Developing multi-agent systems with a FIPA -compliant agent framework

Fabio Bellifemine, Agostino Poggi, and Giovanni Rimassa. Developing multi-agent systems with a FIPA -compliant agent framework. Software: Practice and Experience, 31 0 (2): 0 103--128, 2001

work page 2001
[4]

A multi--agent system for oil field management

Valdir Leanderson Cirqueira de Oliveira, Ana Paula Maia Tanajura, and Herman Augusto Lepikson. A multi--agent system for oil field management. 11th IFAC Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, The International Federation of Automatic Control, May 2013

work page 2013
[5]

Messier, and Sebastian Magierowski

Kevin Dorling, Jordan Heinrichs, Geoffrey G. Messier, and Sebastian Magierowski. Vehicle routing problems for drone delivery. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 47 0 (1): 0 70--85, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

A decentralized hierarchical multi-agent framework for smart grid sustainable energy management

Florin Dragomir. A decentralized hierarchical multi-agent framework for smart grid sustainable energy management. Sustainability, 17 0 (12): 0 5423, June 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Gregory Dudek, Michael R. M. Jenkin, Evangelos Milios, and David Wilkes. A taxonomy for multi--agent robotics. Autonomous Robots, 3: 0 375--397, December 1996

work page 1996
[8]

Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation

Edmund Durfee and Victor Lesser. Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 21: 0 1167--1183, 10 1991

work page 1991

Show all 26 references

[9]

Hierarchical consensus-based multi-agent reinforcement learning for multi-robot cooperation tasks

Pu Feng, Junkang Liang, Size Wang, Xin Yu, Xin Ji, Yiting Chen, Kui Zhang, Rongye Shi, and Wenjun Wu. Hierarchical consensus-based multi-agent reinforcement learning for multi-robot cooperation tasks. arXiv:2407.08164 [cs.AI], 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Practical drone delivery

Eitan Frachtenberg. Practical drone delivery. Computer, 52 0 (12): 0 53--57, 2019

2019
[11]

A taxonomy for autonomous LLM --powered multi--agent architectures

Thorsten H \"a ndler. A taxonomy for autonomous LLM --powered multi--agent architectures. In In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2023), volume 3, pages 85--98, October 2023

2023
[12]

Hanga and Yevgeniya Kovalchuk

Khadijah M. Hanga and Yevgeniya Kovalchuk. Machine learning and multi--agent systems in oil and gas industry applications: A survey. Computer Science Review, 34 0 (100191), November 2019

2019
[13]

A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms

Bryan Horling and Victor Lesser. A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19 0 (4): 0 281--316, 2004

2004
[14]

A large-scale uav swarm confrontation method based on fuzzy reinforcement learning

Chunyang Hu, Jingchen Li, Yusen Yang, Qiong Gu, Zhao Wu, and Bin Ning. A large-scale uav swarm confrontation method based on fuzzy reinforcement learning. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems (2025), 54 0 (4): 0 1--6, January 2025

2025
[15]

Malone and Kevin Crowston

Thomas W. Malone and Kevin Crowston. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26 0 (1): 0 87--119, March 1994

1994
[16]

Moradi, Saleh Razini, and Mahdi Hosseinian

Mohammad H. Moradi, Saleh Razini, and Mahdi Hosseinian. State of art of multiagent systems in power engineering: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 58: 0 Pages 814--824, May 2016

2016
[17]

SPADE 3: Supporting the new generation of multi-agent systems

Javier Palanca, Andr \'e s Terrasa, Vicente Juli \'a n, and Carlos Carrascosa. SPADE 3: Supporting the new generation of multi-agent systems. IEEE Access, 8: 0 182537--182549, 2020

2020
[18]

Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review

Isaac Pinyol and Jordi Sabater-Mir. Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40: 0 1--25, July 2011

2011
[19]

Hierarchical multi-agent reinforcement learning for repair crews dispatch control towards multi-energy microgrid resilience

Dawei Qiu, Yi Wang, Tingqi Zhang, Mingyang Sun, and Goran Strbac. Hierarchical multi-agent reinforcement learning for repair crews dispatch control towards multi-energy microgrid resilience. Applied Energy, 336 0 (120826): 0 19, February 2023

2023
[20]

Reynolds

Craig W. Reynolds. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH '87, pages 25--34, New York, NY, USA, 1987. Association for Computing Machinery

1987
[21]

R. G. Smith. The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-29 0 (12): 0 1104--1113, 1980

1980
[22]

Multi-agent coordination across diverse applications: A survey

Lijun Sun, Yijun Yang, Qiqi Duan, Yuhui Shi, Chao Lyu, Yu-Cheng Chang, Chin-Teng Lin, and Yang Shen. Multi-agent coordination across diverse applications: A survey. arXiv:2502.14743 [cs.MA], 2025

2025 arXiv
[23]

Roma: Multi-agent reinforcement learning with emergent roles

Tonghan Wang, Heng Dong, Victor Lesser, and Congjie Zhang. Roma: Multi-agent reinforcement learning with emergent roles. arXiv:2003.08039 [cs.MA], July 2020

2003 arXiv
[24]

Jennings, and David Kinny

Michael Wooldridge, Nicholas R. Jennings, and David Kinny. The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3 0 (3): 0 285--312, 2000

2000
[25]

Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation, October 2023

Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. Autogen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation, October 2023

2023
[26]

Jennings, and Michael Wooldridge

Franco Zambonelli, Nicholas R. Jennings, and Michael Wooldridge. Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 12 0 (3): 0 317--370, 2003. doi:10.1145/958961.958963

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

How to build multi agent ai system, June 2025

Aalpha. How to build multi agent ai system, June 2025. URL https://www.aalpha.net/blog/how-to-build-multi-agent-ai-system/

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Feudal multi-agent hierarchies for cooperative reinforcement learning

Sanjeevan Ahilan and Peter Dayan. Feudal multi-agent hierarchies for cooperative reinforcement learning. arXiv:1901.08492 [cs.MA], January 2019

arXiv 1901

[3] [3]

Developing multi-agent systems with a FIPA -compliant agent framework

Fabio Bellifemine, Agostino Poggi, and Giovanni Rimassa. Developing multi-agent systems with a FIPA -compliant agent framework. Software: Practice and Experience, 31 0 (2): 0 103--128, 2001

work page 2001

[4] [4]

A multi--agent system for oil field management

Valdir Leanderson Cirqueira de Oliveira, Ana Paula Maia Tanajura, and Herman Augusto Lepikson. A multi--agent system for oil field management. 11th IFAC Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, The International Federation of Automatic Control, May 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Messier, and Sebastian Magierowski

Kevin Dorling, Jordan Heinrichs, Geoffrey G. Messier, and Sebastian Magierowski. Vehicle routing problems for drone delivery. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 47 0 (1): 0 70--85, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

A decentralized hierarchical multi-agent framework for smart grid sustainable energy management

Florin Dragomir. A decentralized hierarchical multi-agent framework for smart grid sustainable energy management. Sustainability, 17 0 (12): 0 5423, June 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Gregory Dudek, Michael R. M. Jenkin, Evangelos Milios, and David Wilkes. A taxonomy for multi--agent robotics. Autonomous Robots, 3: 0 375--397, December 1996

work page 1996

[8] [8]

Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation

Edmund Durfee and Victor Lesser. Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, 21: 0 1167--1183, 10 1991

work page 1991