Advertisement

An Analysis of Majority Voting in Homogeneous Groups for Checkers: Understanding Group Performance Through Unbalance

  • Danilo S. CarvalhoEmail author
  • Minh Le Nguyen
  • Hiroyuki Iida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10664)

Abstract

Experimental evidence and theoretical advances over the years have created an academic consensus regarding majority voting systems, namely that, under certain conditions, the group performs better than its components. However, the underlying reason for such conditions, e.g., stochastic independence of agents, is not often explored and may help to improve performance in known setups by changing agent behavior, or find new ways of combining agents to take better advantage of their characteristics. In this work, an investigation is conducted for homogeneous groups of independent agents playing the game of Checkers. The analysis aims to find the relationship between the change in performance caused by majority voting, the group size, and the underlying decision process of each agent, which is mapped to its source of non-determinism. A characteristic unbalance in Checkers, due to an apparent initiative disadvantage, serves as a pivot for the study, from which decisions can be separated into beneficial or detrimental biases. Experimental results indicate that performance changes caused by majority voting may be beneficial or not, and are linked to the game properties and player skill. Additionally, a way of improving agent performance by manipulating its non-determinism source is briefly explored.

References

  1. 1.
    Triplett, N.: The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. Am. J. Psychol. 9, 507–533 (1898)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hackman, J.R., Morris, C.G.: Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 8, 45–99 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., Malone, T.W.: Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004), 686–688 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webber, R.A.: The relation of group performance to the age of members in homogeneous groups. Acad. Manag. J. 17, 570–574 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schaeffer, J., Burch, N., Björnsson, Y., Kishimoto, A., Müller, M., Lake, R., Lu, P., Sutphen, S.: Checkers is solved. Science 317(5844), 1518–1522 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thiele, R., Althöfer, I.: An analysis of majority systems with dependent agents in a simple subtraction game. In: Plaat, A., Kosters, W., van den Herik, J. (eds.) CG 2016. LNCS, vol. 10068, pp. 202–211. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50935-8_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spoerer, K., Sirivichayakul, T., Iida, H.: Homogeneous group performance in chess. Procedia Technol. 11, 1272–1276 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spoerer, K.T., Okaneya, T., Ikeda, K., Iida, H.: Further investigations of 3-member simple majority voting for chess. In: van den Herik, H.J., Iida, H., Plaat, A. (eds.) CG 2013. LNCS, vol. 8427, pp. 199–207. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09165-5_17 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obata, T., Sugiyama, T., Hoki, K., Ito, T.: Consultation algorithm for computer Shogi: move decisions by majority. In: van den Herik, H.J., Iida, H., Plaat, A. (eds.) CG 2010. LNCS, vol. 6515, pp. 156–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17928-0_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoki, K., Kaneko, T., Yokoyama, D., Obata, T., Yamashita, H., Tsuruoka, Y., Ito, T.: A system-design outline of the distributed-Shogi-system Akara 2010. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD). IEEE, pp. 466–471 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoki, K., Omori, S., Ito, T.: Analysis of performance of consultation methods in computer chess. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 30, 701–712 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Althöfer, I.: Improved game play by multiple computer hints. Theor. Comput. Sci. 313, 315–324 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorge, I., Solomon, H.: Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eureka-type problems. Psychometrika 20, 139–148 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sato, Y., Cincotti, A., Iida, H.: An analysis of voting algorithm in games. In: Computer Games Workshop at European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI, pp. 102–113 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danilo S. Carvalho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Minh Le Nguyen
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Iida
    • 1
  1. 1.Japan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomi CityJapan

Personalised recommendations