Satisficing Models of Bayesian Theory of Mind for Explaining Behavior of Differently Uncertain Agents: Socially Interactive Agents Track

The Bayesian Theory of Mind (ToM) framework has become a common approach to model reasoning about other agents’ desires and beliefs based on their actions. Such models can get very complex when being used to explain the behavior of agents with different uncertainties, giving rise to the question if simpler models can also be satisficing, i.e. sufficing and satisfying, in different uncertainty conditions. In this paper we present a method to simplify inference in complex ToM models by switching between discrete assumptions about certain belief states (corresponding to different ToM models) based on the resulting surprisal. We report on a study to evaluate a complex full model, simplified versions, and a switching model on human behavioral data in a navigation task under specific uncertainties. Results show that the switching model achieves inference results better than the full Bayesian ToM model but with higher efficiency, providing a basis for attaining the ability for "satisficing mentalizing" in social agents.

[1]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Learning What is Where from Social Observations , 2012, CogSci.

[2]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  A dynamic minimal model of the listener for feedback-based dialogue coordination , 2014 .

[3]  D. Barr,et al.  Limits on theory of mind use in adults , 2003, Cognition.

[4]  Chris L. Baker,et al.  Action understanding as inverse planning , 2009, Cognition.

[5]  Chris L. Baker,et al.  Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[6]  A. Cardoso,et al.  Modeling Forms of Surprise in Artificial Agents: Empirical and Theoretical Study of Surprise Functions , 2004 .

[7]  D. Premack,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  P. Carruthers,et al.  Pragmatic development explains the Theory-of-Mind Scale , 2017, Cognition.

[9]  Chris L. Baker,et al.  Modeling Human Plan Recognition Using Bayesian Theory of Mind , 2014 .

[10]  Bart Verheij,et al.  How much does it help to know what she knows you know? An agent-based simulation study , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Interpreting actions by attributing compositional desires , 2017, CogSci.

[12]  Robert P. Goldman,et al.  A Bayesian Model of Plan Recognition , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Higher-order theory of mind in the Tacit Communication Game , 2015, BICA 2015.

[14]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  Minimal Mental Models , 2007, AAAI.

[15]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Rational Inference of Beliefs and Desires From Emotional Expressions , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Klaas E. Stephan,et al.  Inferring on the Intentions of Others by Hierarchical Bayesian Learning , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Seeing the world through others’ minds: Inferring social context from behaviour , 2017, Cognition.

[18]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  Encoding Theory of Mind in Character Design for Pedagogical Interactive Narrative , 2014, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Help or Hinder: Bayesian Models of Social Goal Inference , 2009, NIPS.

[20]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  PsychSim: Modeling Theory of Mind with Decision-Theoretic Agents , 2005, IJCAI.

[21]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Negotiations in the Context of AIDS Prevention: An Agent-Based Model Using Theory of Mind , 2011, IVA.

[23]  H. Wellman,et al.  Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. , 2004, Child development.

[24]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Adaptive Robot Language Tutoring Based on Bayesian Knowledge Tracing and Predictive Decision-Making , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.

[26]  W. Meyer,et al.  Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise , 1997 .

[27]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Monitoring Teams by Overhearing: A Multi-Agent Plan-Recognition Approach , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[28]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[29]  Hannes Rakoczy,et al.  Symposium on S. Butterfill and I. Apperly, "How to Construct a Minimal Theory of Mind" , 2013 .

[30]  B. Malle,et al.  Two Paths to Blame: Intentionality Directs Moral Information Processing Along Two Distinct Tracks , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Bayesian Theory of Mind: Modeling Joint Belief-Desire Attribution , 2011, CogSci.

[32]  N. S. Sridharan,et al.  The Plan Recognition Problem: An Intersection of Psychology and Artificial Intelligence , 1978, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Christopher G. Lucas,et al.  People learn other people’s preferences through inverse decision-making , 2017, Cognition.