ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Effective solutions for real-world Stackelberg games: when agents must deal with human uncertainties
Full text PdfPdf (273 KB)
Source
International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1 table of contents
Budapest, Hungary
SESSION: Virtual agents/agent-human interaction table of contents
Pages 369-376  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-0-9817381-6-1
Authors
James Pita  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Manish Jain  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Fernando Ordóñez  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Milind Tambe  University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Sarit Kraus  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel and University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Reuma Magori-Cohen  Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Sponsors
: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents
Microsoft Research : Microsoft Research
: Wiley - Blackwell Ltd
: Whitestein Technologies
: European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
: Drexel University
Publisher
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 41,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

How do we build multiagent algorithms for agent interactions with human adversaries? Stackelberg games are natural models for many important applications that involve human interaction, such as oligopolistic markets and security domains. In Stackelberg games, one player, the leader, commits to a strategy and the follower makes their decision with knowledge of the leader's commitment. Existing algorithms for Stackelberg games efficiently find optimal solutions (leader strategy), but they critically assume that the follower plays optimally. Unfortunately, in real-world applications, agents face human followers (adversaries) who --- because of their bounded rationality and limited observation of the leader strategy --- may deviate from their expected optimal response. Not taking into account these likely deviations when dealing with human adversaries can cause an unacceptable degradation in the leader's reward, particularly in security applications where these algorithms have seen real-world deployment. To address this crucial problem, this paper introduces three new mixed-integer linear programs (MILPs) for Stackelberg games to consider human adversaries, incorporating: (i) novel anchoring theories on human perception of probability distributions and (ii) robustness approaches for MILPs to address human imprecision. Since these new approaches consider human adversaries, traditional proofs of correctness or optimality are insufficient; instead, it is necessary to rely on empirical validation. To that end, this paper considers two settings based on real deployed security systems, and compares 6 different approaches (three new with three previous approaches), in 4 different observability conditions, involving 98 human subjects playing 1360 games in total. The final conclusion was that a model which incorporates both the ideas of robustness and anchoring achieves statistically significant better rewards and also maintains equivalent or faster solution speeds compared to existing approaches.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Fox, C. personal communication.
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
J. Cardinal, M. Labbé, S. Langerman, and B. Palop. Pricing of geometric transportation networks. In 17th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 2005.
6
 
7
M. Friedman. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32 No. 100:675--701, 1937.
 
8
D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole. Game Theory. MIT Press, 1991.
 
9
J. C. Harsanyi and R. Selten. A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining games with incomplete information. Management Science, 18(5):80--106, 1972.
 
10
 
11
 
12
A. Nilim and L. E. Ghaoui. Robustness in markov decision problems with uncertain transition matrices. In NIPS, 2004.
 
13
F. Ordóñez and N. E. Stier-Moses. Robust wardrop equilibrium. In NET-COOP, 2007.
 
14
15
 
16
 
17
A. Rubinstein. Modeling Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, 1998.
 
18
K. E. See, C. R. Fox, and Y. S. Rottenstreich. Between ignorance and truth: Partition dependence and learning in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32:1385--1402, 2006.
 
19
H. Simon. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63:129--138, 1956.
 
20
A. Tversky and D. J. Koehler. Support thoery: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101:547--567, 1994.
 
21
B. von Stengel and S. Zamir. Leadership with commitment to mixed strategies. In CDAM Research Report LSE-CDAM-2004-01, London School of Economics, 2004.
 
22
K. K. Yuen. The two-sample trimmed t for unequal population variances. Biometrika, 61:165--170, 1974.


Collaborative Colleagues:
James Pita: colleagues
Manish Jain: colleagues
Fernando Ordóñez: colleagues
Milind Tambe: colleagues
Sarit Kraus: colleagues
Reuma Magori-Cohen: colleagues