Capturing the Complexity of Human Strategic Decision-Making with Machine Learning
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the use of machine learning techniques to capture the complexity of human strategic decision-making
- Introduces two novel metrics - Dominant Solvability and Excess Dissimilarity - to quantify the complexity of strategic games
- Demonstrates how these metrics can be used to predict human behavior in strategic environments
Plain English Explanation
This research paper explores how machine learning can be used to better understand the complexity of human strategic decision-making. The researchers developed two new metrics, called Dominant Solvability and Excess Dissimilarity, to quantify the complexity of different strategic games.
The Dominant Solvability metric measures how easy it is for an AI system to find an optimal strategy in a given game. The Excess Dissimilarity metric looks at how different the strategies chosen by human players are compared to the optimal strategy.
By using these metrics, the researchers were able to predict how humans would behave in various strategic environments. This could help advance our understanding of human decision-making and lead to better AI systems that can interact with humans more effectively.
Technical Explanation
The researchers developed two new metrics to quantify the complexity of strategic games:
Dominant Solvability measures how easy it is for an AI system to find an optimal strategy in a given game. It looks at the ratio of the value of the optimal strategy to the value of the next-best strategy. Games with a high Dominant Solvability score are relatively easy for AIs to solve.
Excess Dissimilarity measures how different the strategies chosen by human players are compared to the optimal strategy. It looks at the average distance between human strategies and the optimal strategy. Games with a high Excess Dissimilarity score are more complex for humans to solve.
The researchers used these metrics to analyze a variety of strategic games. They found that the metrics were effective at predicting human behavior, with games high in Dominant Solvability tending to have more predictable human play, and games high in Excess Dissimilarity having less predictable human play.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations in their work. First, the metrics they developed are specific to two-player, zero-sum strategic games, and may not generalize well to more complex multi-player or non-zero-sum scenarios. Additionally, the metrics rely on being able to compute an optimal strategy, which may not always be feasible for real-world strategic decision-making problems.
Another potential issue is that the experiments were conducted using online game platforms, which may not fully capture the nuances of human strategic decision-making in real-world settings. Further research is needed to validate the approach in more ecologically valid contexts.
Overall, this research represents an important step towards using machine learning to better understand the complexity of human strategic behavior. However, there are still many open questions and areas for future work to fully realize the potential of this approach.
Conclusion
This paper introduces two novel metrics, Dominant Solvability and Excess Dissimilarity, that can be used to quantify the complexity of strategic games from the perspective of both AI and human decision-makers. The researchers demonstrate how these metrics can be used to predict human behavior in strategic environments, which has important implications for advancing our understanding of human decision-making and developing more effective AI systems.
While the current approach is limited to two-player, zero-sum games, the underlying concepts could potentially be extended to more complex strategic scenarios. Further research in this area could lead to breakthroughs in areas such as game theory, behavioral economics, and human-AI interaction.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Capturing the Complexity of Human Strategic Decision-Making with Machine Learning
Jian-Qiao Zhu, Joshua C. Peterson, Benjamin Enke, Thomas L. Griffiths
Understanding how people behave in strategic settings--where they make decisions based on their expectations about the behavior of others--is a long-standing problem in the behavioral sciences. We conduct the largest study to date of strategic decision-making in the context of initial play in two-player matrix games, analyzing over 90,000 human decisions across more than 2,400 procedurally generated games that span a much wider space than previous datasets. We show that a deep neural network trained on these data predicts people's choices better than leading theories of strategic behavior, indicating that there is systematic variation that is not explained by those theories. We then modify the network to produce a new, interpretable behavioral model, revealing what the original network learned about people: their ability to optimally respond and their capacity to reason about others are dependent on the complexity of individual games. This context-dependence is critical in explaining deviations from the rational Nash equilibrium, response times, and uncertainty in strategic decisions. More broadly, our results demonstrate how machine learning can be applied beyond prediction to further help generate novel explanations of complex human behavior.
Read more8/16/2024
0
Learning under Imitative Strategic Behavior with Unforeseeable Outcomes
Tian Xie, Zhiqun Zuo, Mohammad Mahdi Khalili, Xueru Zhang
Machine learning systems have been widely used to make decisions about individuals who may best respond and behave strategically to receive favorable outcomes, e.g., they may genuinely improve the true labels or manipulate observable features directly to game the system without changing labels. Although both behaviors have been studied (often as two separate problems) in the literature, most works assume individuals can (i) perfectly foresee the outcomes of their behaviors when they best respond; (ii) change their features arbitrarily as long as it is affordable, and the costs they need to pay are deterministic functions of feature changes. In this paper, we consider a different setting and focus on imitative strategic behaviors with unforeseeable outcomes, i.e., individuals manipulate/improve by imitating the features of those with positive labels, but the induced feature changes are unforeseeable. We first propose a Stackelberg game to model the interplay between individuals and the decision-maker, under which we examine how the decision-maker's ability to anticipate individual behavior affects its objective function and the individual's best response. We show that the objective difference between the two can be decomposed into three interpretable terms, with each representing the decision-maker's preference for a certain behavior. By exploring the roles of each term, we further illustrate how a decision-maker with adjusted preferences can simultaneously disincentivize manipulation, incentivize improvement, and promote fairness.
Read more5/6/2024
➖
0
Predicting human decisions with behavioral theories and machine learning
Ori Plonsky, Reut Apel, Eyal Ert, Moshe Tennenholtz, David Bourgin, Joshua C. Peterson, Daniel Reichman, Thomas L. Griffiths, Stuart J. Russell, Evan C. Carter, James F. Cavanagh, Ido Erev
Predicting human decision-making under risk and uncertainty represents a quintessential challenge that spans economics, psychology, and related disciplines. Despite decades of research effort, no model can be said to accurately describe and predict human choice even for the most stylized tasks like choice between lotteries. Here, we introduce BEAST Gradient Boosting (BEAST-GB), a novel hybrid model that synergizes behavioral theories, specifically the model BEAST, with machine learning techniques. First, we show the effectiveness of BEAST-GB by describing CPC18, an open competition for prediction of human decision making under risk and uncertainty, in which BEAST-GB won. Second, we show that it achieves state-of-the-art performance on the largest publicly available dataset of human risky choice, outperforming purely data-driven neural networks, indicating the continued relevance of BEAST theoretical insights in the presence of large data. Third, we demonstrate BEAST-GB's superior predictive power in an ensemble of choice experiments in which the BEAST model alone falters, underscoring the indispensable role of machine learning in interpreting complex idiosyncratic behavioral data. Finally, we show BEAST-GB also displays robust domain generalization capabilities as it effectively predicts choice behavior in new experimental contexts that it was not trained on. These results confirm the potency of combining domain-specific theoretical frameworks with machine learning, underscoring a methodological advance with broad implications for modeling decisions in diverse environments.
Read more4/19/2024
🧠
0
Towards Neural Network based Cognitive Models of Dynamic Decision-Making by Humans
Changyu Chen, Shashank Reddy Chirra, Maria Jos'e Ferreira, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Arunesh Sinha, Pradeep Varakantham
Modeling human cognitive processes in dynamic decision-making tasks has been an endeavor in AI for a long time because such models can help make AI systems more intuitive, personalized, mitigate any human biases, and enhance training in simulation. Some initial work has attempted to utilize neural networks (and large language models) but often assumes one common model for all humans and aims to emulate human behavior in aggregate. However, the behavior of each human is distinct, heterogeneous, and relies on specific past experiences in certain tasks. For instance, consider two individuals responding to a phishing email: one who has previously encountered and identified similar threats may recognize it quickly, while another without such experience might fall for the scam. In this work, we build on Instance Based Learning (IBL) that posits that human decisions are based on similar situations encountered in the past. However, IBL relies on simple fixed form functions to capture the mapping from past situations to current decisions. To that end, we propose two new attention-based neural network models to have open form non-linear functions to model distinct and heterogeneous human decision-making in dynamic settings. We experiment with two distinct datasets gathered from human subject experiment data, one focusing on detection of phishing email by humans and another where humans act as attackers in a cybersecurity setting and decide on an attack option. We conducted extensive experiments with our two neural network models, IBL, and GPT3.5, and demonstrate that the neural network models outperform IBL significantly in representing human decision-making, while providing similar interpretability of human decisions as IBL. Overall, our work yields promising results for further use of neural networks in cognitive modeling of human decision making.
Read more9/6/2024