Human-Agent Decision-making: Combining Theory and Practice

Extensive work has been conducted both in game theory and logic to model strategic interaction. An important question is whether we can use these theories to design agents for interacting with people? On the one hand, they provide a formal design specification for agent strategies. On the other hand, people do not necessarily adhere to playing in accordance with these strategies, and their behavior is affected by a multitude of social and psychological factors. In this paper we will consider the question of whether strategies implied by theories of strategic behavior can be used by automated agents that interact proficiently with people. We will focus on automated agents that we built that need to interact with people in two negotiation settings: bargaining and deliberation. For bargaining we will study game-theory based equilibrium agents and for argumentation we will discuss logic-based argumentation theory. We will also consider security games and persuasion games and will discuss the benefits of using equilibrium based agents.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2015, arXiv:1606.0729

Agents for educational games and simulations

This book consists mainly of revised papers that were presented at the Agents for Educational Games and Simulation (AEGS) workshop held on May 2, 2011, as part of the Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS) conference in Taipei, Taiwan. The 12 full papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from various submissions. The papers are organized topical sections on middleware applications, dialogues and learning, adaption and convergence, and agent applications

Controlled Matching Game for Resource Allocation and User Association in WLANs

In multi-rate IEEE 802.11 WLANs, the traditional user association based on the strongest received signal and the well known anomaly of the MAC protocol can lead to overloaded Access Points (APs), and poor or heterogeneous performance. Our goal is to propose an alternative game-theoretic approach for association. We model the joint resource allocation and user association as a matching game with complementarities and peer effects consisting of selfish players solely interested in their individual throughputs. Using recent game-theoretic results we first show that various resource sharing protocols actually fall in the scope of the set of stability-inducing resource allocation schemes. The game makes an extensive use of the Nash bargaining and some of its related properties that allow to control the incentives of the players. We show that the proposed mechanism can greatly improve the efficiency of 802.11 with heterogeneous nodes and reduce the negative impact of peer effects such as its MAC anomaly. The mechanism can be implemented as a virtual connectivity management layer to achieve efficient APs-user associations without modification of the MAC layer

Applications of negotiation theory to water issues

The authors review the applications of noncooperative bargaining theory to waterrelated issues-which fall in the category of formal models of negotiation. They aim to identify the conditions under which agreements are likely to emerge and their characteristics, to support policymakers in devising the"rules of the game"that could help obtain a desired result. Despite the fact that allocation of natural resources, especially trans-boundary allocation, has all the characteristics of a negotiation problem, there are not many applications of formal negotiation theory to the issue. Therefore, the authors first discuss the noncooperative bargaining models applied to water allocation problems found in the literature. Key findings include the important role noncooperative negotiations can play in cases where binding agreements cannot be signed; the value added of politically and socially acceptable compromises; and the need for a negotiated model that considers incomplete information over the negotiated resource.Water Supply and Sanitation Governance and Institutions,Town Water Supply and Sanitation,Water and Industry,Environmental Economics&Policies,Water Conservation

Hypergame Analysis in E-Commerce: A Preliminary Report

In usual game theory, it is normally assumed that "all the players see the same game", i.e., they are aware of each other's strategies and preferences. This assumption is very strong for real life where differences in perception affecting the decision making process seem to be the rule rather the exception. Attempts have been made to incorporate misperceptions of various types, but most of these attempts are based on quantities (as probabilities, risk factors, etc.) which are too subjective in general. One approach that seems to be very attractive is to consider that the players are trying to play "different games" in a hypergame. In this paper, we present a hypergame approach as an analysis tool in the context of multiagent environments. Precisely, we first sketch a brief formal introduction to hypergames. Then we explain how agents can interact through communication or through a mediator when they have different views and particularly misperceptions on others' games. After that, we show how agents can take advantage of misperceptions. Finally, we conclude and present some future work. Dans les jeux classiques, il est supposé que "tous les joueurs voient le même jeu'', i.e., que les joueurs sont au courant des stratégies et des préférences des uns et des autres. Aux vu des applications réelles, cette supposition est très forte dans la mesure où les différences de perception affectant la prise de décision semblent plus relevées de la règle que de l'exception. Des tentatives ont été faites, par le passé, pour incorporer les distorsions aux niveaux des perceptions, mais la plupart de ces tentatives ont été essentiellement basées sur le "quantitatif" (comme les probabilités, les facteurs de risques, etc.) et par conséquent, trop subjectives en général. Une approche qui semble être attractive pour pallier à cela, consiste à voir les joueurs comme jouant "différents jeux'' dans une sorte d'hyper-jeu. Dans ce papier, nous présentons une approche "hyper-jeu'' comme outil d'analyse entre agents dans le cadre d'un environnement multi-agent. Nous donnons un aperçu (très succinct) de la formalisation d'un tel hyper-jeux et nous expliquerons ensuite, comment les agents pourraient intervenir via un agent-médiateur quand ils ont des perceptions différentes. Après cela, nous expliquerons comment les agents pourraient tirer avantage des perceptions différentes.Game Theory, Hypergame, Mediation, Théorie des jeux, hyper-jeux, médiation

An overview of economic applications of David Schmeidler`s models of decision making under uncertainty

This paper surveys some economic applications of the decision theoretic framework pioneered by David Schmeidler to model effects of ambiguity. We have organized the discussion principally around three themes: financial markets, contractual arrangements and game theory. The first section discusses papers that have contributed to a better understanding of financial market outcomes based on ambiguity aversion. The second section focusses on contractual arrangements and is divided into two sub-sections. The first sub-section reports research on optimal risk sharing arrangements, while in the second sub-section, discusses research on incentive contracts. The third section concentrates on strategic interaction and reviews several papers that have extended different game theoretic solution concepts to settings with ambiguity averse players. A final section deals with several contributions which while not dealing with ambiguity per se, are linked at a formal level, in terms of the pure mathematical structures involved, with Schmeidler`s models of decision making under ambiguity. These contributions involve issues such as, inequality measurement, intertemporal decision making and multi-attribute choice.Ellsberg Paradox, Ambiguity aversion, Uncertainty aversion

A dynamic over games drives selfish agents to win-win outcomes

Understanding the evolution of human social systems requires flexible formalisms for the emergence of institutions. Although game theory is normally used to model interactions individually, larger spaces of games can be helpful for modeling how interactions change. We introduce a framework for modeling "institutional evolution," how individuals change the games they are placed in. We contrast this with the more familiar within-game "behavioral evolution". Starting from an initial game, agents trace trajectories through game space by repeatedly navigating to more preferable games until they converge on attractor games that are preferred to all others. Agents choose between games on the basis of their "institutional preferences," which define between-game comparisons in terms of game-level features such as stability, fairness, and efficiency. Computing institutional change trajectories over the two-player space, we find that the attractors of self-interested economic agents over-represent fairness by 100% relative to baseline, even though those agents are indifferent to fairness. This seems to occur because fairness, as a game feature, co-occurs with the self-serving features these agents do prefer. We thus present institutional evolution as a mechanism for encouraging the spontaneous emergence of cooperation among inherently selfish agents. We then extend these findings beyond two players, and to two other types of evolutionary agent: the relative fitness maximizing agent of evolutionary game theory (who maximizes inequality), and the relative group fitness maximizing agent of multi-level/group selection theory (who minimizes inequality). This work provides a flexible, testable formalism for modeling the interdependencies of behavioral and institutional evolutionary processes.Comment: 4500 words, 4 figures, 1 supplementary figur