, Volume 189, Supplement 1, pp 81–93 | Cite as

Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict people’s decisions

  • Avi Rosenfeld
  • Inon Zuckerman
  • Amos Azaria
  • Sarit Kraus


Creating agents that proficiently interact with people is critical for many applications. Towards creating these agents, models are needed that effectively predict people’s decisions in a variety of problems. To date, two approaches have been suggested to generally describe people’s decision behavior. One approach creates a-priori predictions about people’s behavior, either based on theoretical rational behavior or based on psychological models, including bounded rationality. A second type of approach focuses on creating models based exclusively on observations of people’s behavior. At the forefront of these types of methods are various machine learning algorithms.This paper explores how these two approaches can be compared and combined in different types of domains. In relatively simple domains, both psychological models and machine learning yield clear prediction models with nearly identical results. In more complex domains, the exact action predicted by psychological models is not even clear, and machine learning models are even less accurate. Nonetheless, we present a novel approach of creating hybrid methods that incorporate features from psychological models in conjunction with machine learning in order to create significantly improved models for predicting people’s decisions. To demonstrate these claims, we present an overview of previous and new results, taken from representative domains ranging from a relatively simple optimization problem and complex domains such as negotiation and coordination without communication.


Prediction models Psychological models for people’s decisions Mixed agent—human systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Kraus, S., Goldman, C. V., & Tsimhoni, O. (2012). Giving advice to people in path selection problems. In AAMAS (pp. 459–466).Google Scholar
  2. Bengio, Y., Delalleau, O., & Roux, N. L. (2005). The curse of dimensionality for local kernel machines (Tech. Rep.).Google Scholar
  3. Chalamish, M., Sarne, D., & Kraus, S. (2008). Programming agents as a means of capturing self-strategy. In AAMAS’08 (pp. 1161–1168).Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, K.-L., Zuckerman, I., Nau, D. S., & Golbeck, J. (2011). The life game: Cognitive strategies for repeated stochastic games. In SocialCom/PASSATIEEE (pp. 95–102).Google Scholar
  5. Evangelista, P. F., Embrechts, M. J., & Szymanski, B. K. (2006). Taming the curse of dimensionality in kernels and novelty detection. In Abraham A., B. de Bacts, M. Köppen, & B. Nickolay (Eds.), Applied soft computing technologies: The challenge of complexity (pp. 431–444). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Fancher, P., & Bareket, Z. (1996). A comparison of manual versus automatic control of headway as a function of driver characteristics. 3rd Annual World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems.Google Scholar
  7. Gal Y., Grosz B., Kraus S., Pfeffer A., Shieber S. (2010) Agent decision-making in open mixed networks. Artificial Intelligence 174(18): 1460–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer G., Goldstein G. D. (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychology Review 103(4): 650–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Janssen M.C.W. (1998) Focal points. In: Newman P. (Ed.), The new palgrave of economics and the law. London, MacMillan, pp 150–155Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin R., Kraus S., Wilkenfeld J., Barry J. (2008) Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence 172 (6–7): 823–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maes P. (1995) Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents. Commun. ACM 38(11): 108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manisterski, E., Lin, R., & Kraus, S. (2008). Understanding how people design trading agents over time. In AAMAS’08 (pp. 1593–1596).Google Scholar
  14. Mitchell M. T. (1997) Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Murakami, Y., Sugimoto, Y., & Ishida, T. (2005). Modeling human behavior for virtual training systems. In AAAI (pp. 127–132).Google Scholar
  16. Nash J. (1951,September) Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics 54(2): 286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neumann V. J., Morgenstern O. (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Nilsson H., Rieskamp J., Wagenmakers E.-J. (2011) Hierarchical bayesian parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology (Print) 55(1): 84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ratcliff R., Smith L. P. (2004,April) A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review 111(2): 333–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenfeld, A., Bareket, Z., Goldman, C. V., Kraus, S., LeBlanc, D. J., & Tshimoni, O. (2012). Learning drivers behavior to improve the acceptance of adaptive cruise control. In Innovative applications of artificial intelligence. AAAI.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2009). Modeling agents through bounded rationality theories. In IJCAI (pp. 264–271).Google Scholar
  22. Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2011). Using aspiration adaptation theory to improve learning. In AAMAS (pp. 423-430).Google Scholar
  23. Russell J. S., Norvig P. (2003) Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  24. Schelling T. (1963) The strategy of conflict. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Selten R. (1998) Aspiration adaptation theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42: 1910–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon A. H. (1957) Models of man. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Zuckerman I., Kraus S., Rosenschein S. J. (2011) Using focal point learning to improve human-machine tacit coordination. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(2): 289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Avi Rosenfeld
    • 1
  • Inon Zuckerman
    • 2
  • Amos Azaria
    • 3
  • Sarit Kraus
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringJerusalem College of TechnologyJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementAriel University Center of SamariaArielIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  4. 4.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations