Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Understanding Human and Machine Interaction from Decision Perspective: An Empirical Study Based on the Game of Go

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors aim to interpret human and AI interactions from the decision perspective. The authors decompose the interaction analysis into the following main components in the context of interactions: Individual behavior patterns, interaction relationships, and comprehensive analysis. The authors interpret intertemporal decisions from a physical perspective and employ cross-discipline concepts and methodologies to extract the behavior characteristics of players in the empirical case study. About the individual behavior patterns, the authors find that human players prefer short-term periods to AI in decision-making. The interaction relationship analysis reveals a dynamic relationship between possible short-term co-movement and nearly counter-movement in the long run. The authors apply principal component analysis to descriptive indicators and discover a regular decision hierarchy. The main behavior pattern of players in the game of Go is switching between careful and daring behaviors. The differences in the decision hierarchies imply a discrepancy of patience between humans and AI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Pedersen T, Johansen C, and Josang A, Behavioural computer science: An agenda for combining modelling of human and system behaviours, Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2018, 8(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-018-0130-0.

  2. Rahwan I, Cebrian M, Obradovich N, et al., Machine behaviour, Nature, 2019, 568(7753): 477–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Whiting T, Gautam A, Tye J, et al., Confronting barriers to human-robot cooperation: Balancing efficiency and risk in machine behavior, iScience, 2021, 24(1): 101963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berns G S, Laibson D, and Loewenstein G, Intertemporal choice — Toward an integrative framework, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2007, 11(11): 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalenscher T and Pennartz C M A, Is a bird in the hand worth two in the future? The neuroeconomics of intertemporal decision-making, Progress in Neurobiology, 2008, 84(3): 284–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, and O’Donoghue T, Time discounting and time preference: A critical review, Journal of Economic Literature, 2002, 40(2): 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Samuelson P, A note on measurement of utility, Review of Economic Studies, 1937, 4(2): 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loewenstein G and Prelec D, Anomalies in intertemporal choice — Evidence and an interpretation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, 107: 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Walther H, Anomalies in intertemporal choice, time-dependent uncertainty and expected utility — A common approach, Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010, 31(1): 114–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koszegi B and Rabin M, A model of reference-dependent preferences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121(4): 1133–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Killeen P R, An additive-utility model of delay discounting, Psychological Review, 2009, 116(3): 602–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baucells M and Bellezza S, Temporal profiles of instant utility during anticipation, event, and recall, Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 729–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rangel A, Camerer C, and Montague P R, Neuroeconomics: The neurobiology of value-based decision-making, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2008, 9(7): 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gluth S, Rieskamp J, and Christian B, Deciding when to decide: Time-variant sequential sampling models explain the emergence of value-based decisions in the human brain, Journal of Neuroscience, 2012, 32(31): 10686–10698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen J D, Ericson K M M, Laibson D, et al., Measuring time preferences, Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58(2): 299–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stevens J R, Cushman F A, and Hauser M D, Evolving the psychological mechanisms for cooperation, Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 2005, 36: 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Samaddar S and Kadiyala S S, An analysis of interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative knowledge creation, European Journal of Operational Research, 2006, 170(1): 192–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cai G S and Kock N, An evolutionary game theoretic perspective on e-collaboration: The collaboration effort and media relativeness, European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 194(3): 821–833.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuentes-Albero C and Rubio S J, Can international environmental cooperation be bought? European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 202(1): 255–264.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Lozano S, Moreno P, Adenso-Diaz B, et al., Cooperative game theory approach to allocating benefits of horizontal cooperation, European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 229(2): 444–452.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Jung W H, Kim S N, Lee T Y, et al., Exploring the brains of baduk (go) experts: Gray matter morphometry, resting-state functional connectivity, and graph theoretical analysis, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013, 7(1): 633.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Beheim B A, Thigpen C, and Mcelreath R, Strategic social learning and the population dynamics of human behavior: The game of Go, Evolution and Human Behavior, 2014, 35(5): 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schultz W, Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data, Physiological Reviews, 2015, 95(3): 853–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elaine D, Bland A R, Alexandre S, et al., Differential effects of reward and punishment in decision making under uncertainty: A computational study, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014, 8: 30.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zimmermann M, Schopf D, Lutteken N, et al., Carrot and stick: A game-theoretic approach to motivate cooperative driving through social interaction, Transportation Research Part C-Emerging Technologies, 2018, 88: 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Percival D B and Walden A T, Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Thomson D J, Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis, Proceedings of the IEEE, 1982, 70(9): 1055–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rahim K J, Applications of multitaper spectral analysis to nonstationary data, Doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ghil M, Allen M R, Dettinger M D, et al., Advanced spectral methods for climatic time series, Reviews of Geophysics, 2002, 40(1): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mitra P P and Pesaran B, Analysis of dynamic brain imaging data, Biophysical Journal, 1999, 76(2): 691–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Prerau M J, Brown R F, Bianchi M T, et al., Sleep neurophysiological dynamics through the lens of multitaper spectral analysis, Physiology, 2017, 32(1): 60–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jenkins G M and Watts D G, Spectral Analysis and Its Applications, Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chang C P and Lee C C, Do oil spot and futures prices move together? Energy Economics, 2015, 50: 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sun Q and Xu W D, Wavelet analysis of the co-movement and lead-lag effect among multi-markets, Physica A, 2018, 512: 489–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Allcott H and Wozny N, Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2014, 96(5): 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Paulus M P and Yu A J, Emotion and decision-making: Affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2012, 16(9): 476–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Borgonovo E and Cillo A, Deciding with thresholds: Importance measures and value of information, Risk Analysis, 2017, 37(10): 1828–1848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kahneman D, Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics, American Economic Review, 2003, 93(5): 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Spearman C, General intelligence objectively determined and measured, American Journal of Psychology, 1904, 15: 201–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Colom R, Jung R E, and Haier R J, Distributed brain sites for the g-factor of intelligence, NeuroImage, 2006, 31(3): 1359–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Visser B A, Ashton M C, and Vernon P A, Beyond G: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test, Intelligence, 2006, 34(5): 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Silver D, Schrittwieser J, Simonyan K, et al., Mastering the game of go without human knowledge, Nature, 2017, 550(7676): 354–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Ping Zhao, Xuerong Li & Shouyang Wang

  2. School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Ping Zhao

  3. School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Shouyang Wang

Authors
  1. Ping Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuerong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shouyang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuerong Li.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71988101.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, P., Li, X. & Wang, S. Understanding Human and Machine Interaction from Decision Perspective: An Empirical Study Based on the Game of Go. J Syst Sci Complex 37, 647–667 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-024-1450-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-024-1450-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation