International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 5–26

Acting Deceptively: Providing Robots with the Capacity for Deception

Article

Abstract

Deception is utilized by a variety of intelligent systems ranging from insects to human beings. It has been argued that the use of deception is an indicator of theory of mind (Cheney and Seyfarth in Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, 2008) and of social intelligence (Hauser in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:12137–12139, 1992). We use interdependence theory and game theory to explore the phenomena of deception from the perspective of robotics, and to develop an algorithm which allows an artificially intelligent system to determine if deception is warranted in a social situation. Using techniques introduced in Wagner (Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2009), 2009), we present an algorithm that bases a robot’s deceptive action selection on its model of the individual it’s attempting to deceive. Simulation and robot experiments using these algorithms which investigate the nature of deception itself are discussed.

Keywords

Deception Game theory Interdependence theory Interaction Hide-and-seek Theory of mind 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akerlof GA (1970) The market for ‘lemons’. Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin RC (1999) Behavior-based robotics, 2 edn. In: Arkin RC (ed) Intelligent robots and autonomous agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 491 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkin RC (2009) Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Chapman Hall/CRC, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bond CF, Robinson M (1988) The evolution of deception. J Nonverbal Behav 12(4):295–307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2008) Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ettinger D, Jehiel P (2009) Towards a theory of deception. ELSE Working Papers (181). ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution, London, UK Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Floreano D et al (2007) Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Curr Biol 17(6):514–519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerwehr S, Glenn RW (2000) The art of darkness: deception and urban operations. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbons R (1992) Game theory for applied economists. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hauser MD (1992) Costs of deception: cheaters are punished in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Proc Nat Acad Sci 89:12137–12139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jordan M et al (1998) An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. In: Jordan M (ed) Learning in Graphical models. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelley HH, Thibaut JW (1978) Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. Wiley, New York, p 341 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley HH et al (2003) An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 506 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie DC, Arkin RC, Cameron JM (1997) Multiagent mission specification and execution. Auton Robot 4:29–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCleskey E (1991) Applying deception to special operations direct action missions. Defense Intelligence College, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman D (1983) Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner D, Stevens A (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osborne MJ, Rubinstein A (1994) A course in game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, 2006, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM (2003) Interdependence, interaction and relationship. Ann Rev Psychol 54:351–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sears DO, Peplau LA, Taylor SE (1991) Social psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 634 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87(3):355–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stoytchev A (2005) Behavior-grounded representation of tool affordances. In: EEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). Barcelona, Spain Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trafton JG et al (2006) Children and robots learning to play hide and seek. In: 1st ACM conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, Salt Lake City Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wagner AR (2009) Creating and using matrix representations of social interaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI 2009). San Diego, CA, USA Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner AR (2009) The role of trust and relationships in human-robot social interaction. In: School of interactive computing. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wagner AR, Arkin RC (2008) Analyzing social situations for human-robot interaction. Interact Stud 10(2):277–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wagner AR, Arkin RC (2009) Robot deception: recognizing when a robot should deceive. In: IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation. Daejeon, Korea Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whaley B (1982) Towards a general theory of deception. J Strateg Stud 5(1):178–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yamagishi T (2001) Trust as a form of social intelligence. In: Cook KS (ed) Trust in society. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 121–147 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Tech Research InstituteAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations