The n-Stage War of Attrition and its Inverse Game Towards its Application in Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making

Rothfus, Simon; Tanaka, Toshiaki Sebastian; Inga, Jairo; Hohmann, Sören

doi:10.1109/cdc42340.2020.9303952

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach is motivated by the success of model-based automation designs on the action level of human-machine cooperation [2]. Consequently, we proposed two models of cooperative decision making in previous papers: the Adaptive Negotiation Framework [4] and the n-Stage War of Attrition [7]. The two models originate from negotiation theory and game theory and provide means to describe cooperative decision making among machines and humans, respectively: negotiation theory is based on automated decision makers that are required to explicitly agree on a conflict resolution whereas game theory comprises interaction models of individual, selfish decision makers, e. g. humans and animals.…”

Section: B Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Rothfuß¹,

Wörner²,

Inga³

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<div>The experiment reported in this paper provides a first experimental evaluation of human-machine cooperation on decision level: It explicitly focuses on the interaction of human and machine in cooperative decision making situations for which a suitable experimental design is introduced. Furthermore, it challenges conventional leader-follower approaches by comparing them to newly proposed automation designs based on cooperative decision making models. These models originate from negotiation theory and game theory and allow for an investigation of cooperative decision making between equal partners. This equality is motivated by similar approaches on the action level of human-machine cooperation. <br></div><div>The experiment’s results indicate an added value of the proposed automation designs in terms of objective cooperative performance as well as human trust in and satisfaction with the cooperation. Hence, the experiment yields the same insight on decision level as already observed on action level: it may be beneficial to design machines as equal cooperation partners and in accordance to models of emancipated human-machine cooperation.</div>

show abstract

Section: B Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With repetitions of the game, this density distribution can be updated. One possible approach is introduced in our previous paper [7].…”

Section: B the N-stage War Of Attrition Automation Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Rothfuß¹,

Wörner²,

Inga³

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach is motivated by the success of model-based automation designs on the action level of human-machine cooperation [2]. Consequently, we proposed two models of cooperative decision making in previous papers: the Adaptive Negotiation Framework [4] and the n-Stage War of Attrition [6]. The two models originate from negotiation theory and game theory and provide means to describe cooperative decision making among machines and humans: negotiation theory is based on automated decision makers that are required to explicitly agree on a conflict resolution whereas game theory comprises interaction models of individual, selfish decision makers, e. g. humans and animals.…”

Section: B Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This threshold calculation is for the case in which player i has lost since stage l. If player i has won since the previous stage l, his current valuation difference d k i remains d l i and the offset correction of the cost function and for the update of the density distribution have to be adapted accordingly (c τ 1:l , d l:k = 0). For a proof that this threshold calculation leads to a perfect Bayesian equilibrium refer to [6].…”

Section: B the N-stage War Of Attrition Automation Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, due to the usual lack of information on the density distribution f d of valuation differences of the human player, a uniform distribution on an appropriate range of valuation differences is initially utilized. With repetitions of the game, this density distribution can be updated [6], which has no relevant effect on this paper's experimental evaluation.…”

Section: B the N-stage War Of Attrition Automation Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human–Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Rothfuß

Wörner

Charaja

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experiment reported in this paper provides a first experimental evaluation of human-machine cooperation on decision level: It explicitly focuses on the interaction of human and machine in cooperative decision making situations for which a suitable experimental design is introduced. Furthermore, it challenges conventional leader-follower approaches by comparing them to newly proposed automation designs based on cooperative decision making models. These models originate from negotiation theory and game theory and allow for an investigation of cooperative decision making between equal partners. This equality is motivated by similar approaches on the action level of humanmachine cooperation.The experiment's results indicate an added value of the proposed automation designs in terms of objective cooperative performance as well as human trust in and satisfaction with the cooperation. Hence, the experiment yields the same insight on decision level as already observed on action level: it may be beneficial to design machines as equal cooperation partners and in accordance to models of emancipated human-machine cooperation.

show abstract

The n-Stage War of Attrition and its Inverse Game Towards its Application in Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Human-Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Human–Machine Cooperative Decision Making Outperforms Individualism and Autonomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About