Date post: | 15-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | brayden-aplin |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Emergent Social Phenomena and Social Action Selection
Alan R Wagner
Georgia Institute of Technology Research Institute
Aerospace, Transportation, and Advanced System Lab
Atlanta USA
2
What does the I in HRI stand for?
Interaction: influence—verbal, physical or emotional—by one individual on another (Sears, Peplau, & Taylor, 1991).
3
How can we represent interaction computationally?
Game TheoryStrategic interactionAssumes that each
player maximizes influence
Interesting equilibrium results
Normal form game
Interdependence Theory
Constructed from psychological experiments
No assumptions about player’s motives
No equilibrium resultsOutcome matrix
4
The Outcome Matrix/Normal Form Game
Representation: A finite set of N
individuals For each iN a
nonempty set of actions Ai
A scalar outcome value (o) for every pair of actions (influence)
-i used to represent the robot’s partner
Outcome Matrix
Person 1
Per
son
2
Accept 5 5 8 2
Reject
0 0 0 0
Fair Unfair
5
Social Situations and Interaction
8 8 0 12
12 0 1 1
An interaction is a discrete period of influence between two individuals choosing between particular actions
Social situation is an abstract representation of a class of interactions involving particular outcome values
8 8 0 12
12 0 1 1
Tom
Eri
cAdmit Guilt
Claim innoc.
Admit GuiltClaim innoc.
ai1 ai2
a-i1
a-i2
-i
i
6
The Space of Social Situations
Interdependence space (Kelley, et al. 2003)
Location in the space provides info. about the situation
The dimensions are: Interdependence Correspondence Control Symmetry – not shown
Inte
rdep
ende
nce
A
xis
Inde
pend
ent
D
epen
dent
Correspondence of Outcomes Axis Basis of Control
Axis
Coordination
Exchange
3-D Interdependence Space
PD Game
HERO
CHICKEN
TRUST
Colored parallelograms denote social situations
Corresponding
Conflicting
7
Deception (joint with Ron Arkin)
Deception is commonly used by animals
The use of deception by primates may indicate Theory of Mind (Byrne & Whiten, 1990) Signal exaggeration, signal
suppression, distractions, hiding objects, etc.
May be a hallmark of social intelligence (Byrne & Whiten, 1990)
Mimicry
Camouflage
8
Defining Deception
Deception: “Causing another to believe what is not true; to mislead or ensnare.” (Webster’s, 1999)
Deliberately induced misperception (McClesky, 1991)
A false communication that tends to benefit the communicator (Bond and Robinson, 1988)
We use Bond and Robinson’s definition because of its general applicability
9
Situations Warranting Deception
Deception is a false communication that tends to benefit the communicator (Bond and Robinson, 1988)
1) Deceiver provides false communication. This implies conflict.
2) Deceiver benefits from communication. This implies dependence.
Correspondence Dimension
Conflicting Outcomes
Corresponding Outcomes
Interdependence Dimension
Dependent Outcomes
Independent Outcomes
Area maximally warranting deception
Situations warranting deception • k1
10
Computationally Representing Deception
Mark
Dec
eive
r Play dead x 9 x 2
Don’t Play Dead
x x x x
Approach Stay away
Deceiver and Mark choose actions Deceiver selects actions that will influences
Mark’s behavior Play dead so that Mark will approach
Induced Matrix
11
Computationally Representing Deception
Mark
Dec
eive
r Play dead x 9 x 2
Don’t Play Dead
x x x x
Approach Stay away
Deceiver’s actions make Mark think that one action is more rewarding or less costly then it actually is
-3
True value
True Matrix
12
Trust
Idea: Some social situations require trust and others do not
Can we use our representation of social situations and interaction to classify situations in terms of trust?
13
Defining trust
Trust is a belief, held by the trustor, that the trustee will act in a manner that mitigates the trustor’s risk in a situation in which the trustee has put its outcomes at risk.
Key point: risk
14
Classifying situational trust
Trustor
Tru
stee
Action ALean back
Action BDon’t lean
back
A trustor is the individual doing the trusting. The trustee is the individual being trusted
Let action A be the trusting action and action B be the untrusting action
Action C Catch
Action DDon’t catch
15
Classifying situations in terms of trust
Trustor
Tru
stee
If the trustor doesn’t trust the trustee, then their outcome is 6, and the trustee’s action doesn’t matter, i.e. no risk!
6 12 4 6
6 0 4 6
If the trustor trusts the trustee, then they risk 6 for a possible gain of 12
If the trusting action is selected, then the trustee’s choice of action determines the trustor’s outcome
Action C Catch
Action DDon’t catch
Action ALean back
Action BDon’t lean
back
16
Conditions for Situational Trust
Trustor
Tru
stee
We can thus list some conditions for trust:1. It is better for trustor if the trustee acts in a
trusting manner (12 > 0 )2. It is better for trustor to select the untrusting
action, than for the trustor to trust and have the trustee not act in a trusting manner (from example 12 > 6 > 6 > 0 )
6 12 4 6
6 0 4 6Action C
Catch
Action DDon’t catch
Action ALean back
Action BDon’t lean
back
17
How much Trust?
Trust risk Risk: expectation over a loss function L
R(x) = L(x,y)p(x) where x is predicted y is the true value
Partner Model related
Context/Situation related loss
18
Thank you
19
References
Carpin, S., Jijun Wang, Michael Lewis, Andreas Birk, Adam Jacoff: High Fidelity Tools for Rescue Robotics: Results and Perspectives. RoboCup 2005: 301-31.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275-315). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska.
Gambetta, D. (1990). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust, making and breaking cooperative relationships (pp. pages 213--237). Oxford England: Basil Blackwell.
Kelley, H. H., J. G. Holmes, N. L. Kerr, H. T. Reis, C. E. Rusbult, and P. A. M. V. Lange, An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2003.
H. H. Kelley and J. W. Thibaut, Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1978.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power.Chichester: Wiley Publishers. Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Relationship.
(2000). In American heritage dictionary. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationship. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 351-375. Sears, D. O., Peplau, L. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social psychology.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.