An "Ethical" Game-Theoretic Solution Concept for Two-Player Perfect-Information Games

The standard solution concept for perfect-information extensive form games is subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. However, humans do not always play according to a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, especially in games where it is possible for all the players to obtain much higher payoffs if they place some trust in each other (and this trust is not violated). In this paper, we introduce a new solution concept for two-player perfect-information games that attempts to model this type of trusting behavior (together with the "ethical" behavior of not violating that trust). The concept takes subgame perfect equilibrium as a starting point, but then repeatedly resolves the game based on the players being able to trust each other. We give two distinct algorithmic definitions of the concept and show that they are equivalent. Finally, we give a fast implementation of one of the algorithms for solving the game, and show that it runs in time O (n logn + nh log(n /h )).

[1]  Michael Anderson,et al.  MedEthEx: A Prototype Medical Ethics Advisor , 2006, AAAI.

[2]  James H. Moor,et al.  The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machine Ethics , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[3]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  An Efficient Optimal-Equilibrium Algorithm for Two-player Game Trees , 2006, UAI.

[4]  Nagel,et al.  Experimental Results on the Centipede Game in Normal Form: An Investigation on Learning. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[5]  P. Zak,et al.  Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness , 2005, Hormones and Behavior.

[6]  Bruce M. McLaren,et al.  Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

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

[8]  Marcello Guarini,et al.  Particularism and the Classification and Reclassification of Moral Cases , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[9]  Michael Anderson,et al.  The status of machine ethics: a report from the AAAI Symposium , 2007, Minds and Machines.

[10]  Eric Bennett Rasmusen.  Readings in games and information , 2001 .

[11]  S. Quartz,et al.  Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange , 2005, Science.

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

[13]  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..

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

[15]  P. Zak,et al.  The Neurobiology of Trust , 2004, Scientific American.