Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article

Problem restructuring for better decision making in recurring decision situations

Published: 01 January 2015 Publication History

Abstract

This paper proposes the use of restructuring information about choices to improve the performance of computer agents on recurring sequentially dependent decisions. The intended situations of use for the restructuring methods it defines are website platforms such as electronic marketplaces in which agents typically engage in sequentially dependent decisions. With the proposed methods, such platforms can improve agents' experience, thus attracting more customers to their sites. In sequentially-dependent-decisions settings, decisions made at one time may affect decisions made later; hence, the best choice at any point depends not only on the options at that point, but also on future conditions and the decisions made in them. This "problem restructuring" approach was tested on sequential economic search, which is a common type of recurring sequentially dependent decision-making problem that arises in a broad range of areas. The paper introduces four heuristics for restructuring the choices that are available to decision makers in economic search applications. Three of these heuristics are based on characteristics of the choices, not of the decision maker. The fourth heuristic requires information about a decision-makers prior decision-making, which it uses to classify the decision-maker. The classification type is used to choose the best of the three other heuristics. The heuristics were extensively tested on a large number of agents designed by different people with skills similar to those of a typical agent developer. The results demonstrate that the problem-restructuring approach is a promising one for improving the performance of agents on sequentially dependent decisions. Although there was a minor degradation in performance for a small portion of the agents, the overall and average individual performance improved substantially. Complementary experimentation with people demonstrated that the methods carry over, to some extent, also to human decision makers. Interestingly, the heuristic that adapts based on a decision-maker's history achieved the best results for computer agents, but not for people.

References

[1]
Allais, M. (1979). The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American School (1952). In M Allais & O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox, Vol. 21 of Theory and decision library (pp. 27---145). Berlin: Springer.
[2]
Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). http://www.mturk.com/. Accessed 12 Jan 2014.
[3]
Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational (Revised and expanded ed.: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
[4]
Azaria, A., Aumann, Y., & Kraus, S. (2012). Automated strategies for determining rewards for human work. In Proceedings of AAAI.
[5]
Azaria, A., Kraus, S., & Richardson, A. (2013). In RecSys: A system for advice provision in multiple prospect selection problems.
[6]
Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Kraus, S., & Goldman, C. (2011). Strategic information disclosure to people with multiple alternatives. In Proceedings of AAAI.
[7]
Azaria, A., Richardson, A., Elmalech, A., & Rosenfeld, A. (2014). Automated agents' behavior in the trust-revenge game in comparison to other cultures. Proceedings of AAMAS.
[8]
Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 215---233.
[9]
Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K., & McBurney, P. (2012). Using argumentation to model agent decision making in economic experiments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 25(1), 183---208.
[10]
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001). Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. American Economic Review, 91(2), 67---72.
[11]
Bharati, P., & Chaudhury, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of decision-making satisfaction in web-based decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 187---197.
[12]
Blackhart, G. C., & Kline, J. P. (2005). Individual differences in anterior EEG asymmetry between high and low defensive individuals during a rumination/distraction task. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 427---437.
[13]
Brown, M., Flinn, C. J., & Schotter, A. (2011). Real-time search in the laboratory and the market. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 948---974.
[14]
Burgess, A. (2012). Nudginghealthy lifestyles: The uk experiments with the behavioural alternative to regulation and the market. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1, 3---16.
[15]
Carmel, D., & Markovitch, S. (1997). Exploration and adaptation in multiagent systems: A model-based approach. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 606---611).
[16]
Chalamish, M., Sarne, D., & Lin, R. (2012). The effectiveness of peer-designed agents in agent-based simulations. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 8(4), 349---372.
[17]
Chavez, A., & Maes, P. (1996). Kasbah: An agent marketplace for buying and selling goods. In Proceedings of the first international conference on the practical application of intelligent agents and multi-agent technology (pp. 75---90).
[18]
Danilov, V. I., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2010). Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty. Theory and Decision, 68(1---2), 25---47.
[19]
Dekay, M. L., & Kim, T. G. (2005). When things don't add up: The role of perceived fungibility in repeated-play decisions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 667---672.
[20]
Dommermuth, W. P. (1965). The shopping matrix and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 128---132.
[21]
Drake, R. A. (1993). Processing persuasive arguments: Discounting of truth and relevance as a function of agreement and manipulated activation asymmetry. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(2), 184---196.
[22]
Dudey, T., & Todd, P. M. (2001). Making good decisions with minimal information: Simultaneous and sequential choice. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3(2---3), 195---215.
[23]
Dushnitsky, G., & Klueter, T. (2011). Is there an ebay for ideas? insights from online knowledge marketplaces. European Management Review, 8, 17---32.
[24]
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 1---31.
[25]
Elmalech, A., & Sarne, D. (2012). Evaluating the applicability of peer-designed agents in mechanisms evaluation. In Proceedings of WIC (pp. 374---381).
[26]
Ferguson, T. (1989). Who solved the secretary problem? Statistical Science, 4(3), 282---289.
[27]
Gal, Y., Grosz, B., Kraus, S., Pfeffer, A., & Shieber, S. (2010). Agent decision-making in open-mixed networks. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1460---1480.
[28]
Grosfeld-Nir, A., Sarne, D., & Spiegler, I. (2009). Modeling the search for the least costly opportunity. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(2), 667---674.
[29]
Grosz, B. J., Kraus, S., Talman, S., Stossel, B., & Havlin, M. (2004). The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: Initial investigations with a new game. In Proceedings of AAMAS-2004 (pp. 780---787).
[30]
Guerini, M., & Stock, O. (2005). Toward ethical persuasive agents. In Proceedings of the international joint conference of artificial intelligence workshop on computational models of natural argument.
[31]
Ha, V. A., & Haddawy, P. (1998). Toward case-based preference elicitation: Similarity measures on preference structures. In Proceedings of UAI (pp. 193---201).
[32]
Haim, G., Gal, Y. K., Gelfand, M., & Kraus, S. (2012). A cultural sensitive agent for human---computer negotiation. In Proceeding of AAMAS (pp. 451---458).
[33]
Hajaj, C., Hazon, N., Sarne, D., & Elmalech, A. (2013). Search more, disclose less. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 401---408).
[34]
Hajaj, C., Sarne, D., & Perets, L. (2014). Automated service schemes for a self-interested information platform. In Proceedings of AAMAS.
[35]
Harries, C., Evans, J. S., & Dennis, I. (2000). Measuring doctors' self-insight into their treatment decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 455---477.
[36]
Hazon, N., Lin, R., & Kraus, S. (2013). How to change a groups collective decision? In Proceedings of IJCAI-13.
[37]
Hey, J. D. (1982). Search for rules for search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 65---81.
[38]
Hey, J. D. (1987). Still searching. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 8(1), 137---144.
[39]
Hills, T., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Information search in decisions from experience: Do our patterns of sampling foreshadow our decisions? Psychological Science, 21(12), 1787---1792.
[40]
Hogg, L., & Jennings, N. R. (2001). Socially intelligent reasoning for autonomous agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics--Part A, 31(5), 381---399.
[41]
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
[42]
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17---31.
[43]
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263---291.
[44]
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[45]
Kaptein, M., Duplinsky, S., & Markopoulos, P. (2011). Means based adaptive persuasive systems. In Proceedings of SIGCHI - conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '11) (pp. 335---344).
[46]
Kempen, G. I., Van Heuvelen, M. J., Van den Brink, R. H., Kooijman, A. C., Klein, M., Houx, P. J., et al. (1996). Factors affecting contrasting results between self-reported and performance-based levels of physical limitations. Age and Ageing, 25(6), 458---464.
[47]
Kephart, J. O., & Greenwald, A. (2002). Shopbot economics. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5(3), 255---287.
[48]
Keren, G. (1991). Additional tests of utility theory under unique and repeated conditions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 297---304.
[49]
Keren, G., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1987). Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(3), 387---391.
[50]
Klein, L. R., & Ford, G. T. (2003). Consumer search for information in the digital age: An empirical study of prepurchase search for automobiles. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(3), 29---49.
[51]
Kleinmuntz, D., & Thomas, J. (1987). The value of action and inference in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(3), 341---364.
[52]
Klos, A., Weber, E. U., & Weber, M. (2005). Investment decisions and time horizon: Risk perception and risk behavior in repeated gambles. Management Science, 51(12), 1777---1790.
[53]
Kraus, S., Hoz-Weiss, P., Wilkenfeld, J., Andersen, D. R., & Pate, A. (2008). Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 172(1), 1---18.
[54]
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1), 1---69.
[55]
Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2001). Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portfolios. Management Science, 47(5), 716---733.
[56]
Lee, M. D. (2006). A hierarchical Bayesian model of human decision-making on an optimal stopping problem. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 555---580.
[57]
Lin, R., Gal, Y., Kraus, S., & Mazliah, Y. (2014). Training with automated agents improves people's behavior in negotiation and coordination tasks. Decision Support Systems (in press).
[58]
Lin, R., Kraus, S., Agmon, N., Barrett, S., & Stone, P. (2011). Comparing agents: Success against people in security domains. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 809---814).
[59]
Lin, R., Kraus, S., Oshrat, Y., & Gal, Y. (2010). Facilitating the evaluation of automated negotiators using peer designed agents. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 817---822).
[60]
Littman, M. L. (1996). Algorithms for sequential decision making. Ph.D. Thesis, Brown University.
[61]
Liu, E. M. (2013). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1386---1403.
[62]
Liu, H., & Colman, A. (2009). Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 277---284.
[63]
Markowitz, H. (2014). Mean variance approximations to expected utility. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(2), 346---355.
[64]
Montgomery, H., & Adelbratt, T. (1982). Gambling decisions and information about expected value. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29(1), 39---57.
[65]
Moon, P., & Martin, A. (1990). Better heuristics for economic search experimental and simulation evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(3), 175---193.
[66]
Natarajan, K., Sim, M., & Uichanco, J. (2010). Tractable robust expected utility and risk models for portfolio optimization. Mathematical Finance, 20(4), 695---731.
[67]
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010). Behavior change support systems: A research model and agenda. In T. Ploug, P Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), Persuasive technology. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6137, pp. 4---14). Berlin: Springer.
[68]
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411---419.
[69]
Power, D. J., & Sharda, R. (2009). Decision support systems. In S. Nof (Ed.), Handbook of automation (pp. 1539---1548). Berlin: Springer.
[70]
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323---343.
[71]
Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 11---46.
[72]
Rapoport, A., & Wallsten, T. S. (1972). Individual decision behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 23(1), 131---176.
[73]
Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1990). Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. The New England Journal of Medicine, 322(16), 1162.
[74]
Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 429---440.
[75]
Roberts, J. H., & Lilien, G. L. (1993). Explanatory and predictive models of consumer behavior. In J. H. Eltashberg & G. L. Lilien (Eds.), Handbooks in operations research and management science (pp. 27---82). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
[76]
Rochlin, I., & Sarne, D. (2013). Information sharing under costly communication in joint exploration. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 847---853).
[77]
Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2012). Modeling agents based on aspiration adaptation theory. In Proceedings of AAMAS (Vol. 24(2), pp. 221---254).
[78]
Rosenfeld, A., Zuckerman, I., Azaria, A., & Kraus, S. (2012). Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict peoples decisions. Synthese, 189(1), 81---93.
[79]
Samuelson, P. A. (1963). Risk and uncertainty: A fallacy of large numbers. Scientia, 6, 1---6.
[80]
Sarne, D. (2013). Competitive shopbots-mediated markets. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 1(3), 17.
[81]
Sarne, D., Elmalech, A., Grosz, B. J., & Geva, M. (2011). Less is more: Restructuring decisions to improve agent search. In Proceedings of AAMAS (pp. 431---438).
[82]
Sarne, D., & Kraus, S. (2003). The search for coalition formation in costly environments. In Cooperative information agents VII (pp. 117---136). Berlin: Springer.
[83]
Sarne, D., & Kraus, S. (2008). Managing parallel inquiries in agents' two-sided search. Artificial Intelligence, 172(4---5), 541---569.
[84]
Schoemaker, P. J. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529---563.
[85]
Schotter, A., & Braunstein, Y. M. (1981). Economic search: An experimental study. Economic Inquiry, 19(1), 1---25.
[86]
Schunk, D., & Winter, J. (2009). The relationship between risk attitudes and heuristics in search tasks: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 71(2), 347---360.
[87]
Shackle, G. (1969). Decision, order and time in human affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[88]
Shamoun, S., & Sarne, D. (2013). Increasing threshold search for best-valued agents. Artificial Intelligence, 199---200, 1---21.
[89]
Sheena, I. (2010). The art of choosing. New York: Twelve.
[90]
Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R., Noriega, P., & Parsons, S. (1998). A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of intelligent agents IV, agent theories, architectures, and languages, ATAL '97 (pp. 177---192). Berlin: Springer.
[91]
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129---38.
[92]
Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and organization: A volume in honor of Jacob Marschak (pp. 161---176). Amsterdam: North Holland.
[93]
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 13(2), 238---241.
[94]
Sonnemans, J. (1998). Strategies of search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35(3), 309---332.
[95]
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332---382.
[96]
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557---571.
[97]
Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643---660.
[98]
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[99]
Thorndike, A. N., Sonnenberg, L., Riis, J., Barraclough, S., & Levy, D. E. (2012). A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 527---533.
[100]
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297---323.
[101]
Wedell, D. H. (2011). Evaluations of single- and repeated-play gambles. In J. Cochran (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Chichester: Wiley.
[102]
Wedell, D. H., & Böckenholt, U. (1994). Contemplating single versus multiple encounters of a risky prospect. The American Journal of Psychology, 107(4), 499---518.
[103]
Weitzman, M. L. (1979). Optimal search for the best alternative. Econometrica, 47(3), 641---654.
[104]
Trading Agent Competition (TAC). http://www.sics.se/tac. Accessed 12 Jan 2014.
[105]
Yu, E. S. (2001). Evolving and messaging decision-making agents. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 449---456).

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Advising Agent for Service-Providing Live-Chat OperatorsMulti-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-20614-6_3(41-59)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2022
  • (2018)Modeling Assistant's Autonomy Constraints as a Means for Improving Autonomous Assistant-Agent DesignProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3237919(1468-1476)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
  • (2017)The benefit in free information disclosure when selling information to peopleProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3298239.3298385(985-992)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2017
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Problem restructuring for better decision making in recurring decision situations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
    Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems  Volume 29, Issue 1
    January 2015
    159 pages

    Publisher

    Kluwer Academic Publishers

    United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2015

    Author Tags

    1. Decision Making
    2. Experimentation
    3. Platform Design
    4. Sequentially Dependent Decisions

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)Advising Agent for Service-Providing Live-Chat OperatorsMulti-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-20614-6_3(41-59)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2022
    • (2018)Modeling Assistant's Autonomy Constraints as a Means for Improving Autonomous Assistant-Agent DesignProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3237919(1468-1476)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
    • (2017)The benefit in free information disclosure when selling information to peopleProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3298239.3298385(985-992)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2017
    • (2017)Market interfaces for electric vehicle chargingJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research10.5555/3176788.317679359:1(175-227)Online publication date: 1-May-2017
    • (2017)Enhancing crowdworkers' vigilanceProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171837.3171966(4826-4830)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
    • (2017)Selective opportunity disclosure at the service of strategic information platformsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-016-9357-131:5(1133-1164)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
    • (2017)Enhancing comparison shopping agents through ordering and gradual information disclosureAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-016-9342-831:3(696-714)Online publication date: 1-May-2017
    • (2016)Efficiency and fairness in team search with self-interested agentsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-015-9319-z30:3(526-552)Online publication date: 1-May-2016
    • (2016)Agent development as a strategy shaperAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-015-9299-z30:3(506-525)Online publication date: 1-May-2016
    • (2015)Constraining information sharing to improve cooperative information gatheringJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research10.5555/2910557.291056854:1(437-469)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015

    View Options

    View options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media