Strategic Information Disclosure to People with Multiple Alternatives

In this article, we study automated agents that are designed to encourage humans to take some actions over others by strategically disclosing key pieces of information. To this end, we utilize the framework of persuasion games—a branch of game theory that deals with asymmetric interactions where one player (Sender) possesses more information about the world, but it is only the other player (Receiver) who can take an action. In particular, we use an extended persuasion model, where the Sender’s information is imperfect and the Receiver has more than two alternative actions available. We design a computational algorithm that, from the Sender’s standpoint, calculates the optimal information disclosure rule. The algorithm is parameterized by the Receiver’s decision model (i.e., what choice he will make based on the information disclosed by the Sender) and can be retuned accordingly. We then provide an extensive experimental study of the algorithm’s performance in interactions with human Receivers. First, we consider a fully rational (in the Bayesian sense) Receiver decision model and experimentally show the efficacy of the resulting Sender’s solution in a routing domain. Despite the discrepancy in the Sender’s and the Receiver’s utilities from each of the Receiver’s choices, our Sender agent successfully persuaded human Receivers to select an option more beneficial for the agent. Dropping the Receiver’s rationality assumption, we introduce a machine learning procedure that generates a more realistic human Receiver model. We then show its significant benefit to the Sender solution by repeating our routing experiment. To complete our study, we introduce a second (supply--demand) experimental domain and, by contrasting it with the routing domain, obtain general guidelines for a Sender on how to construct a Receiver model.

[1]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Receiving Other People's Advice: Influence and Benefit , 2004 .

[2]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A study in the pragmatics of persuasion: a game theoretical approach , 2006 .

[4]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Guiding User Choice During Discussion by Silence, Examples and Justifications , 2012, ECAI.

[5]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[6]  Amos Azaria,et al.  Analyzing the Effectiveness of Adversary Modeling in Security Games , 2013, AAAI.

[7]  P. Dayan,et al.  Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans , 2006, Nature.

[8]  Avshalom Elmalech,et al.  Less is more: restructuring decisions to improve agent search , 2011, AAMAS.

[9]  Daeyeol Lee,et al.  Neuroeconomics: Best to go with what you know? , 2006, Nature.

[10]  Evsen Turkay Pillai Two -sided uncertainty in persuasion games , 2009 .

[11]  S. Bonaccio,et al.  Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences , 2006 .

[12]  Hani S. Mahmassani,et al.  DYNAMICS OF COMMUTING DECISION BEHAVIOR UNDER ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[13]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory , 1990 .

[14]  Yaniv,et al.  Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[15]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Using aspiration adaptation theory to improve learning , 2011, AAMAS.

[16]  L. Cameron,et al.  Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia , 1999 .

[17]  Amos Azaria,et al.  Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict people’s decisions , 2012, Synthese.

[18]  Amos Azaria,et al.  Giving Advice to People in Path Selection Problems , 2012, Interactive Decision Theory and Game Theory.

[19]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Relying on the Information of Interested Parties , 1985 .

[20]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling , 2009, AAMAS.

[21]  Amos Azaria,et al.  Automated Strategies for Determining Rewards for Human Work , 2012, AAAI.

[22]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[23]  J. Sobel,et al.  STRATEGIC INFORMATION TRANSMISSION , 1982 .

[24]  Avshalom Elmalech,et al.  Search More, Disclose Less , 2013, AAAI.

[25]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[26]  ปิยดา สมบัติวัฒนา Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2013 .

[27]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  Agent-Human Interactions in the Continuous Double Auction , 2001, IJCAI.

[28]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game , 1984 .

[29]  Charles R. Johnson,et al.  Topics in Matrix Analysis , 1991 .

[30]  Emir Kamenica,et al.  Bayesian Persuasion , 2009 .

[31]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[32]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  How effective is advice from interested parties?: An experimental test using a pure coordination game , 2007 .

[33]  E. Molin,et al.  Travel information as an instrument to change car- drivers' travel choices: a literature review , 2006 .

[34]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Modeling Reciprocal Behavior in Human Bilateral Negotiation , 2007, AAAI.