Facilitating the Evaluation of Automated Negotiators using Peer Designed Agents

Computer agents are increasingly deployed in settings in which they make decisions with people, such as electronic commerce, collaborative interfaces, and cognitive assistants. However, the scientific evaluation of computational strategies for human-computer decision-making is a costly process, involving time, effort and personnel. This paper investigates the use of Peer Designed Agents (PDA)—computer agents developed by human subjects—as a tool for facilitating the evaluation process of automatic negotiators that were developed by researchers. It compares the performance between automatic negotiators that interacted with PDAs to automatic negotiators that interacted with actual people in different domains. The experiments included more than 300 human subjects and 50 PDAs developed by students. Results showed that the automatic negotiators outperformed PDAs in the same situations in which they outperformed people, and that on average, they exhibited the same measure of generosity towards their negotiation partners. These patterns occurred for all types of domains, and for all types of automated negotiators, despite the fact that there were individual differences between the behavior of PDAs and people. The study thus provides an empirical proof that PDAs can alleviate the evaluation process of automatic negotiators, and facilitate their design.

[1]  James K. Sebenius,et al.  Thinking Coalitionally: Party Arithmetic, Process Opportunism, and Strategic Sequencing , 1992 .

[2]  S. Gächter Behavioral Game Theory , 2008, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[3]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[4]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of the centipede game , 1992 .

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

[6]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: initial investigations with a new game , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[7]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[8]  Laura Boteler,et al.  Virtual Reality Skills Training for Health Care Professionals in Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention , 2009, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[9]  Theo Offerman,et al.  Cooperation in an Overlapping Generations Experiment , 1999, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? , 2010, CACM.

[11]  Shou-De Lin,et al.  Designing the Market Game for a Trading Agent Competition , 2001, IEEE Internet Comput..

[12]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Efficient agents for cliff-edge environments with a large set of decision options , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[13]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  How to play (3×3)-games.: A strategy method experiment , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[14]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory , 1990 .

[15]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Modeling Agents through Bounded Rationality Theories , 2009, IJCAI.

[16]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Programming agents as a means of capturing self-strategy , 2008, AAMAS.

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

[18]  R. Selten,et al.  Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players , 1997 .

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

[20]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using Bayesian learning , 2008, AAMAS.

[21]  David R. Traum,et al.  Multi-party, Multi-issue, Multi-strategy Negotiation for Multi-modal Virtual Agents , 2008, IVA.

[22]  Dale E. Olsen Interview and Interrogation Training using a Computer-Simulated Subject , 1997 .

[23]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Learning Social Preferences in Games , 2004, AAAI.

[24]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  The RoboCup Physical Agent Challenge: Goals and Protocols for Phase 1 , 1997, RoboCup.

[25]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[27]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  The Influence of Task Contexts on the Decision-Making of Humans and Computers , 2007, CONTEXT.

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

[29]  Claudio Bartolini,et al.  AutONA: a system for automated multiple 1-1 negotiation , 2003, EC '03.

[30]  Shou-De Lin,et al.  A trading agent competition , 2000 .

[31]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  DESIGNING AND BUILDING A NEGOTIATING AUTOMATED AGENT , 1995, Comput. Intell..