Every team deserves a second chance: an extended study on predicting team performance

Voting among different agents is a powerful tool in problem solving, and it has been widely applied to improve the performance in finding the correct answer to complex problems. We present a novel benefit of voting, that has not been observed before: we can use the voting patterns to assess the performance of a team and predict their final outcome. This prediction can be executed at any moment during problem-solving and it is completely domain independent. Hence, it can be used to identify when a team is failing, allowing an operator to take remedial procedures (such as changing team members, the voting rule, or increasing the allocation of resources). We present three main theoretical results: (1) we show a theoretical explanation of why our prediction method works; (2) contrary to what would be expected based on a simpler explanation using classical voting models, we show that we can make accurate predictions irrespective of the strength (i.e., performance) of the teams, and that in fact, the prediction can work better for diverse teams composed of different agents than uniform teams made of copies of the best agent; (3) we show that the quality of our prediction increases with the size of the action space. We perform extensive experimentation in two different domains: Computer Go and Ensemble Learning. In Computer Go, we obtain high quality predictions about the final outcome of games. We analyze the prediction accuracy for three different teams with different levels of diversity and strength, and show that the prediction works significantly better for a diverse team. Additionally, we show that our method still works well when trained with games against one adversary, but tested with games against another, showing the generality of the learned functions. Moreover, we evaluate four different board sizes, and experimentally confirm better predictions in larger board sizes. We analyze in detail the learned prediction functions, and how they change according to each team and action space size. In order to show that our method is domain independent, we also present results in Ensemble Learning, where we make online predictions about the performance of a team of classifiers, while they are voting to classify sets of items. We study a set of classical classification algorithms from machine learning, in a data-set of hand-written digits, and we are able to make high-quality predictions about the final performance of two different teams. Since our approach is domain independent, it can be easily applied to a variety of other domains.

[1]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Monitoring norm violations in multi-agent systems , 2013, AAMAS.

[2]  Yongjie Yang,et al.  Manipulation with Bounded Single-Peaked Width: A Parameterized Study , 2015, AAMAS.

[3]  G. V. Kass An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data , 1980 .

[4]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  A Maximum Likelihood Approach towards Aggregating Partial Orders , 2011, IJCAI.

[5]  Olivier Teytaud,et al.  Modification of UCT with Patterns in Monte-Carlo Go , 2006 .

[6]  David J. Hand,et al.  A Simple Generalisation of the Area Under the ROC Curve for Multiple Class Classification Problems , 2001, Machine Learning.

[7]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[8]  Pedro U. Lima,et al.  Abnormality detection in multiagent systems inspired by the adaptive immune system , 2013, AAMAS.

[9]  Cha Zhang,et al.  Ensemble Machine Learning: Methods and Applications , 2012 .

[10]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Automated assistants to aid humans in understanding team behaviors , 2000, AGENTS '00.

[11]  M. Trick,et al.  Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .

[12]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Better Human Computation Through Principled Voting , 2013, AAAI.

[13]  Joachim Gudmundsson,et al.  Computational Aspects of Multi-Winner Approval Voting , 2014, MPREF@AAAI.

[14]  Andrew G. Barto,et al.  Transfer in Reinforcement Learning via Shared Features , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[15]  Geoffrey I. Webb,et al.  Using Decision Trees for Agent Modeling: Improving Prediction Performance , 2004, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[16]  Petr Baudis,et al.  PACHI: State of the Art Open Source Go Program , 2011, ACG.

[17]  Inon Zuckerman,et al.  Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard , 2003, IJCAI.

[18]  Leandro Soriano Marcolino,et al.  Multi-Agent Team Formation: Diversity Beats Strength? , 2013, IJCAI.

[19]  Meir Kalech,et al.  On the design of coordination diagnosis algorithms for teams of situated agents , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[21]  Gjergji Kasneci,et al.  Crowd IQ: aggregating opinions to boost performance , 2012, AAMAS.

[22]  D. Cox The Regression Analysis of Binary Sequences , 1958 .

[23]  Leandro Soriano Marcolino,et al.  A Detailed Analysis of a Multi-agent Diverse Team , 2013, COIN@AAMAS/PRIMA.

[24]  Leandro Soriano Marcolino,et al.  Diverse Randomized Agents Vote to Win , 2014, NIPS.

[25]  Milind Tambe,et al.  What Is Wrong With Us? Improving Robustness Through Social Diagnosis , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[26]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Coordinating multi-agent reinforcement learning with limited communication , 2013, AAMAS.

[27]  D. Cox The Regression Analysis of Binary Sequences , 2017 .

[28]  Takeshi Ito,et al.  Consultation Algorithm for Computer Shogi: Move Decisions by Majority , 2010, Computers and Games.

[29]  Meir Kalech,et al.  COORDINATION DIAGNOSTIC ALGORITHMS FOR TEAMS OF SITUATED AGENTS: SCALING UP , 2011, Comput. Intell..

[30]  Guandong Xu,et al.  An Integrated Pruning Criterion for Ensemble Learning Based on Classification Accuracy and Diversity , 2012, KMO.

[31]  Evangelos Markakis,et al.  Multiple Referenda and Multiwinner Elections Using Hamming Distances: Complexity and Manipulability , 2015, AAMAS.

[32]  Gal A. Kaminka Handling Coordination Failures in Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems , 2006 .

[33]  Marco LiCalzi,et al.  The Power of Diversity Over Large Solution Spaces , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[34]  Jared Quenzel,et al.  Predicting the Winner of Tied National Football League Games , 2016 .

[35]  H. Nurmi Comparing Voting Systems , 1987 .

[36]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Determining Possible and Necessary Winners under Common Voting Rules Given Partial Orders , 2008, AAAI.

[37]  Yisong Yue,et al.  “ How to Get an Open Shot ” : Analyzing Team Movement in Basketball using Tracking Data , 2014 .

[38]  Michael H. Bowling,et al.  Bayes' Bluff: Opponent Modelling in Poker , 2005, UAI 2005.

[39]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Determining Possible and Necessary Winners under Common Voting Rules Given Partial Orders , 2008, AAAI.

[40]  Fernando Ramos,et al.  Discovering tactical behavior patterns supported by topological structures in soccer agent domains , 2008, AAMAS.

[41]  Felix Brandt,et al.  Incentives for Participation and Abstention in Probabilistic Social Choice , 2015, AAMAS.

[42]  Franco Raimondi,et al.  A synergistic and extensible framework for multi-agent system verification , 2013, AAMAS.

[43]  Leandro Soriano Marcolino,et al.  Give a Hard Problem to a Diverse Team: Exploring Large Action Spaces , 2014, AAAI.

[44]  Andrés Caro,et al.  Prediction of Quality Features in Iberian Ham by Applying Data Mining on Data From MRI and Computer Vision Techniques , 2014 .

[45]  Christian Guttmann Making Allocations Collectively: Iterative Group Decision Making under Uncertainty , 2008, MATES.

[46]  Martin Müller,et al.  Fuego—An Open-Source Framework for Board Games and Go Engine Based on Monte Carlo Tree Search , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[47]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Automatic Verification of Parameterised Interleaved Multi-Agent Systems , 2013, ArXiv.

[48]  Simon M. Lucas,et al.  A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[49]  M. Trick,et al.  The computational difficulty of manipulating an election , 1989 .

[50]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Game theory-based opponent modeling in large imperfect-information games , 2011, AAMAS.

[51]  Doan Thu Trang,et al.  Verifying heterogeneous multi-agent programs , 2014, AAMAS.

[52]  C. List,et al.  Epistemic democracy : generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem , 2001 .

[53]  Gábor Lugosi,et al.  Prediction, learning, and games , 2006 .

[54]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[55]  Areej Malibari,et al.  Students Performance Prediction System Using Multi Agent Data Mining Technique , 2014 .

[56]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Introduction to information retrieval , 2008 .

[57]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  When do noisy votes reveal the truth? , 2013, EC '13.

[58]  David Blevins,et al.  Predicting the Atlanta Falcons Play-Calling Using Discriminant Analysis , 2011 .

[59]  Pieter Spronck,et al.  Opponent Modeling in Real-Time Strategy Games , 2007, GAMEON.

[60]  Bikramjit Banerjee,et al.  General Game Learning Using Knowledge Transfer , 2007, IJCAI.

[61]  N. Graham,et al.  Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: Statistical significance and interpretation , 2002 .

[62]  N. Chawla,et al.  Evolutionary Ensembles : Combining Learning Agents using Genetic Algorithms , 2005 .

[63]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Electing the Most Probable Without Eliminating the Irrational: Voting Over Intransitive Domains , 2014, UAI.

[64]  Peter E. Hart,et al.  Nearest neighbor pattern classification , 1967, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[65]  Osamu Watanabe,et al.  Evaluating Root Parallelization in Go , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[66]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators , 2005, UAI.

[67]  Matjaz Gams,et al.  Discovering Strategic Behaviour of Multi-Agent Systems in Adversary Settings , 2014, Comput. Informatics.

[68]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving explicit opponent models in game playing , 2007, GECCO '07.

[69]  Arunava Sen,et al.  Random dictatorship domains , 2012, Games Econ. Behav..

[70]  Sridha Sridharan,et al.  Large-Scale Analysis of Soccer Matches Using Spatiotemporal Tracking Data , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[71]  Matthew E. Taylor,et al.  Teaching on a budget: agents advising agents in reinforcement learning , 2013, AAMAS.

[72]  Peter Stone,et al.  Transfer Learning for Reinforcement Learning Domains: A Survey , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[73]  Michael Schomaker,et al.  Model Averaging in Factor Analysis: An Analysis of Olympic Decathlon Data , 2011 .

[74]  Muhammad Khusairi Osman,et al.  Weather Forecasting Using Photovoltaic System and Neural Network , 2010, 2010 2nd International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Communication Systems and Networks.

[75]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Complexity of and Algorithms for Borda Manipulation , 2011, AAAI.

[76]  Noa Agmon,et al.  Effective, quantitative, obscured observation-based faultdetection in multi-agent systems , 2014, AAMAS.

[77]  Lu Hong,et al.  Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[78]  Paul Scerri,et al.  Coordination of Large-Scale Multiagent Systems , 2005 .

[79]  H. Jaap van den Herik,et al.  Opponent modelling for case-based adaptive game AI , 2009, Entertain. Comput..

[80]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Hybrid BDI-POMDP Framework for Multiagent Teaming , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[81]  Yu-Han Chang,et al.  Deconstructing the Rebound with Optical Tracking Data , 2012 .

[82]  Meir Kalech,et al.  A hybrid approach for fault detection in autonomous physical agents , 2014, AAMAS.

[83]  Leandro Soriano Marcolino,et al.  Every Team Deserves a Second Chance: Identifying When Things Go Wrong (Student Abstract Version) , 2015, AAAI.

[84]  Iain Matthews,et al.  "Quality vs Quantity": Improved Shot Prediction in Soccer using Strategic Features from Spatiotemporal Data , 2015 .