Advertisement

Are You Thinking What I’m Thinking? An Evaluation of a Simplified Theory of Mind

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8108)

Abstract

We examine the effectiveness of an agent’s approximate theory of mind when interacting with human players in a wartime negotiation game. We first measure how accurately the agent’s theory of mind captured the players’ actual behavior. We observe significant overlap between the players’ behavior and the agents’ idealized expectations, but we also observe significant deviations. Forming an incorrect expectation about a person is not inherently damaging, so we then analyzed how different deviations affected the game outcomes. We observe that many classes of inaccuracy in the agent’s theory of mind did not hurt the agent’s performance and, in fact, some of them played to the agent’s benefit. The results suggest potential advantages to giving an agent a computational model of theory of mind that is overly simplified, especially as a first step when investigating a domain with as much uncertainty as wartime negotiation.

Keywords

theory of mind cognitive models wartime negotiation evaluation of formal models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, C.L., Tenenbaum, J.B., Saxe, R.R.: Goal inference as inverse planning. In: CogSci (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curhan, J.R., Elfenbein, H.A., Xu, H.: What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 493–512 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dupuis, E.C., Cohn, E.S.: A new scale to measure war attitudes: Construction and predictors. Journal of Psychological Arts and Sciences 3(1), 6–15 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodie, A.S., Doshi, P., Young, D.L.: Levels of theory-of-mind reasoning in competitive games. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25(1), 95–108 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoogendoorn, M., Soumokil, J.: Evaluation of virtual agents utilizing theory of mind in a real time action game. In: AAMAS, pp. 59–66 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaelbling, L.P., Littman, M.L., Cassandra, A.R.: Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence 101, 99–134 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman, D.: Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51(2), 296–312 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, J.M., Hill Jr., R.W., Durlach, P.J., Lane, H.C., Forbell, E., Core, M., Marsella, S., Pynadath, D., Hart, J.: Bilat: A game-based environment for practicing negotiation in a cultural context. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19(3), 289–308 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klatt, J., Marsella, S., Krämer, N.C.: Negotiations in the context of AIDS prevention: An agent-based model using theory of mind. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 209–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marsella, S.C., Pynadath, D.V., Read, S.J.: PsychSim: Agent-based modeling of social interactions and influence. In: ICCM, pp. 243–248 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, L.C., Marsella, S., Dey, T., Appleby, P.R., Christensen, J.L., Klatt, J., Read, S.J.: Socially optimized learning in virtual environments (SOLVE). In: André, E. (ed.) ICIDS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7069, pp. 182–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neale, M.A., Bazerman, M.H.: Cognition and rationality in negotiation. Free Press (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Powell, R.: Bargaining and learning while fighting. American Journal of Political Science 48(2), 344–361 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pynadath, D.V., Marsella, S.C.: PsychSim: Modeling theory of mind with decision-theoretic agents. In: IJCAI, pp. 1181–1186 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pynadath, D.V., Marsella, S.C.: Minimal mental models. In: AAAI, pp. 1038–1046 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pynadath, D.V., Marsella, S.C., Wang, N.: Computational models of human behavior in wartime negotiations. In: CogSci (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson, R.J., Lewicki, R.J., Donahue, E.M.: Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the sins scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 649–664 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slantchev, B.L.: The principle of convergence in wartime negotiations. American Political Science Review 97, 621–632 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Lange, P.A.M., De Bruin, E.M.N., Otten, W., Joireman, J.A.: Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(4), 733–746 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whiten, A. (ed.): Natural Theories of Mind. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Curious Lab LLCLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations