Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.5555/3306127.3331755acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dynamic Particle Allocation to Solve Interactive POMDP Models for Social Decision Making

Published: 08 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

In social dilemma settings, such as repeated Public Goods Games (PGGs), humans often come across a dilemma whether to contribute or not based on past contributions from others. In such settings, the decision taken by an agent/human actually depends not only on the belief the agent has about other agents and the environment, but also on their beliefs about others' beliefs. To factor in these aspects, we propose a novel formulation of computational theory of mind (ToM) to model human behavior in a repeated PGG using interactive partially observable Markov decision processes (I-POMDPs). Interactive particle filter (IPF) is a well-known algorithm used to approximately solve I-POMDP models for the agents to find their optimal contributions. Number of particles assigned to an agent in IPF can be translated into time and computational resources. Solving I-POMDPs in a time-memory efficient manner even in the case of small state spaces is a largely intractable problem. Also, maintaining a fixed number of particles assigned to each agent, over time, will be highly inefficient in terms of resource utilization. To address this problem, we propose a dynamic particle allocation algorithm for different agents based on how well they could predict. We validate our proposed algorithm through real experiments involving human agents. Our results suggest that dynamic particle allocation based IPF for I-POMDPs is effective in modelling human behaviours in repeated social dilemma setting while utilizing computational resources in an effective manner.

References

[1]
Stefano V Albrecht and Peter Stone. 2018. Autonomous agents modelling other agents: A comprehensive survey and open problems. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 258 (2018), 66--95.
[2]
Baker, Chris L, Jara-Ettinger, Julian, Saxe, Rebecca, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2017. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour (2017).
[3]
Chris L. Baker, Rebecca Saxe, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2011. Bayesian Theory of Mind: Modeling Joint Belief-Desire Attribution. In CogSci .
[4]
Daan Bloembergen, Karl Tuyls, Daniel Hennes, and Michael Kaisers. 2015. Evolutionary Dynamics of Multi-agent Learning: A Survey. J. Artif. Int. Res., Vol. 53, 1 (May 2015), 659--697. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2831071.2831085
[5]
Enrique Munoz de Cote, Alessandro Lazaric, and Marcello Restelli. 2006. Learning to Cooperate in Multi-agent Social Dilemmas. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 783--785.
[6]
Prashant Doshi and Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz. 2005 a. Approximating State Estimation in Multiagent Settings Using Particle Filters. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 320--327.
[7]
Prashant Doshi and Piotr J Gmytrasiewicz. 2005 b. A particle filtering based approach to approximating interactive pomdps. In AAAI . 969--974.
[8]
Prashant Doshi and Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz. 2009. Monte Carlo Sampling Methods for Approximating Interactive POMDPs. J. Artif. Int. Res., Vol. 34, 1 (March 2009), 297--337. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1622716.1622725
[9]
Prashant Doshi and Dennis Perez. 2008a. Generalized Point Based Value Iteration for Interactive POMDPs.
[10]
Prashant Doshi and Dennis Perez. 2008b. Generalized Point Based Value Iteration for Interactive POMDPs. In Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1 (AAAI'08). AAAI Press, 63--68. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1619995.1620007
[11]
Prashant Doshi, Xia Qu, Adam Goodie, and Diana Young. 2010. Modeling recursive reasoning by humans using empirically informed interactive POMDPs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1223--1230.
[12]
Prashant Doshi, Xia Qu, Adam S Goodie, and Diana L Young. 2012. Modeling human recursive reasoning using empirically informed interactive partially observable markov decision processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 42, 6 (2012), 1529--1542.
[13]
V'ictor Elvira, Joaqu'in M'iguez, and Petar M Djurić. 2017. Adapting the number of particles in sequential Monte Carlo methods through an online scheme for convergence assessment. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 65, 7 (2017), 1781--1794.
[14]
Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz and Prashant Doshi. 2005. A Framework for Sequential Planning in Multi-agent Settings. J. Artif. Int. Res., Vol. 24, 1 (July 2005), 49--79. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1622519.1622521
[15]
R Mark Isaac and James M Walker. 1988. Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contributions mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 103, 1 (1988), 179--199.
[16]
Koosha Khalvati, Seongmin A. Park, Jean-Claude Dreher, and Rajesh P. N. Rao. 2016. A Probabilistic Model of Social Decision Making Based on Reward Maximization. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'16). Curran Associates Inc., USA, 2909--2917. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3157382.3157423
[17]
Paul AM Van Lange, Jeff Joireman, Craig D Parks, and Eric Van Dijk. 2013. The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 120, 2 (2013), 125--141.
[18]
J. Ledyard. 1995. Public Goods: A survey of experimental research .In Handbook of Experimental Economics, J.H. Hagel and A.E. Roth, Eds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
[19]
et al. Martin Nowak, Karl Sigmund. 1993. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner's dilemma game . Nature, Vol. 364, 6432 (1993), 56--58.
[20]
Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund. 1998. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, Vol. 393, 6685 (1998), 573--577.
[21]
Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita, and Edward O. Wilson. 2010. The evolution of eusociality. Nature, Vol. 466 (2010).
[22]
Alessandro Panella and Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz. 2015. Nonparametric Bayesian Learning of Other Agents? Policies in Interactive POMDPs. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS '15). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 1875--1876. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2772879.2773481
[23]
Jan Pöppel and Stefan Kopp. 2018. Satisficing Models of Bayesian Theory of Mind for Explaining Behavior of Differently Uncertain Agents: Socially Interactive Agents Track. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 470--478.
[24]
David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 1, 4 (1978), 515--526.
[25]
Xia Qu, Prashant Doshi, and Adam Goodie. 2012. Modeling deep strategic reasoning by humans in competitive games. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1243--1244.
[26]
Neil C. Rabinowitz, Frank Perbet, H. Francis Song, Chiyuan Zhang, S. M. Ali Eslami, and Matthew Botvinick. 2018. Machine Theory of Mind. CoRR, Vol. abs/1802.07740 (2018). arxiv: 1802.07740 http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07740
[27]
Anatol Rapoport. 1974. Prisoner's Dilemma-Recollections and observations .Springer.
[28]
Brian Scassellati. 2002. Theory of Mind for a Humanoid Robot. Autonomous Robots, Vol. 12, 1 (01 Jan 2002), 13--24.
[29]
David Silver and Joel Veness. 2010. Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 2164--2172.
[30]
Ekhlas Sonu, Yingke Chen, and Prashant Doshi. 2017. Decision-theoretic planning under anonymity in agent populations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 59 (2017), 725--770.
[31]
Siddharth Suri and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments. PLOS ONE, Vol. 6, 3 (03 2011), 1--18.
[32]
Michael Wunder, Michael Kaisers, John Robert Yaros, and Michael Littman. 2011. Using Iterated Reasoning to Predict Opponent Strategies. In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2 (AAMAS '11). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 593--600. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2031678.2031702

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
AAMAS '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems
May 2019
2518 pages
ISBN:9781450363099

Sponsors

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 08 May 2019

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bayesian analysis
  2. interactive partially observerable markov decision processes
  3. interactive particle filter
  4. partially observable monte carlo planning
  5. public good games
  6. theory-of-mind modelling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

AAMAS '19
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

AAMAS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 193 of 793 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 109
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media