Human behavior modeling within an integrative framework

There exists a diverse variety of human behavior models, spanning multiple disciplines, each addressing a particular aspect of the whole problem of creating agents that behave realistically. This research focuses on the benefits and challenges of attempting to assemble such models into a unified system. It will be shown that, despite the inevitable complexity involved, the integration of human behavior models into a common framework can provide opportunities to leverage the work and assumptions of existing models to simplify the introduction of new ones. This is exemplified in the development of a novel, non-statistical solution to the problem of predicting future agent behavior from past observations that is particularly well suited to environments with large state spaces. By modeling the behavior of other agents in terms of the motivations underlying their actions, this method allows for the rapid inference of models that robustly predict behavior across novel states of the environment. This method adjusts quickly to new information, and is sensitive to the difference between observations that invalidate its current estimates and those that directly contradict hard constraints implied by past observations.

[1]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Can Computers Deliberately Deceive? A Simulation Tool and Its Application to Turing's Imitation Game , 2003, Comput. Intell..

[2]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  The Cognitive Structure of Emotions , 1988 .

[3]  Sanmay Das,et al.  Learning and decision: making for intention reconciliation , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[4]  Wolfgang Reisig,et al.  Petri Nets , 1985, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[5]  J. Harsanyi Games with Incomplete Information Played by 'Bayesian' Players, Part III. The Basic Probability Distribution of the Game , 1968 .

[6]  Wenji Mao,et al.  A Utility-Based Approach to Intention Recognition , 2004, AAMAS 2004.

[7]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  An ascription-based approach to Speech Acts , 1996, COLING.

[8]  B. Silverman,et al.  How Emotions and Personality Effect the Utility of Alternative Decisions: A Terrorist Target Selection Case Study , 2001 .

[9]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Team Coordination among Distributed Agents: Analyzing Key Teamwork Theories and Models , 2002 .

[10]  E. Durfee,et al.  Toward Rational Communicative Behavior , 1995 .

[11]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Trust in multi-agent systems , 2004, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[12]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Trust-based mechanism design , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[13]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[14]  三嶋 博之 The theory of affordances , 2008 .

[15]  Prashant Doshi,et al.  A Particle Filtering Algorithm for Interactive POMDPs , 2004 .

[16]  C. Elliott The affective reasoner: a process model of emotions in a multi-agent system , 1992 .

[17]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  An evidential model of distributed reputation management , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[18]  Kurt Jensen,et al.  A Brief Introduction to Coloured Petri Nets , 1997, TACAS.

[19]  D. Cicchetti Emotion and Adaptation , 1993 .

[20]  B. Silverman,et al.  Human Behavior Models for Game-Theoretic Agents: Case of Crowd Tipping , 2002 .

[21]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  A strategic negotiations model with applications to an international crisis , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[22]  Carles Sierra,et al.  An information-based model for trust , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[23]  M. Lee,et al.  Belief ascription in mixed initiative dialogue , 2002 .

[24]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[25]  Graça Gaspar,et al.  Emotion based adaptive reasoning for resource bounded agents , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[26]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Believing others: Pros and cons , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Rino Falcone,et al.  Trust dynamics: how trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[28]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  A Rigorous, Operational Formalization of Recursive Modeling , 1995, ICMAS.

[29]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Rational Communication in Multi-Agent Environments , 2001, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[30]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Adapting to agents' personalities in negotiation , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[31]  Mark Lee The Ethics of Deception : Why AI must study selfish behaviour , 1999 .

[32]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Negotiation and Task Sharing Among Autonomous Agents in Cooperative Domains , 1989, IJCAI.

[33]  Sean A. Spence,et al.  Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[34]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  SILENT AGENTS: From Observation to Tacit Communication , 2006, IBERAMIA-SBIA.

[35]  Barry G. Silverman,et al.  Toward A Human Behavior Models Anthology for Synthetic Agent Development , 2001 .

[36]  Jonathan Gratch,et al.  Modeling the Interplay Between Emotion and Decision-Making . , 2000 .

[37]  Valentin Robu,et al.  Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[38]  A. Damasio Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. avon books , 1994 .

[39]  J. Orbell,et al.  “Machiavellian” Intelligence as a Basis for the Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[40]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  Fitting and compilation of multiagent models through piecewise linear functions , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[41]  R. Hetherington The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

[42]  George P. Huber,et al.  Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies , 1974 .

[43]  Michael Luck,et al.  Coalition formation through motivation and trust , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[44]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[45]  Barry G. Silverman,et al.  Constructing Virtual Asymmetric Opponents from Data and Models in the Literature: Case of Crowd Rioting , 2002 .

[46]  C. Rogowski Model-based Opponent Modelling in Domains Beyond the Prisoner's Dilemma , 2004 .

[47]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  The Belief-Desire-Intention Model of Agency , 1998, ATAL.

[48]  Prashant Doshi,et al.  Approximating state estimation in multiagent settings using particle filters , 2005, AAMAS '05.