×

An automated method for building cognitive models for turn-based games from a strategy logic. (English) Zbl 1418.91073

Summary: Whereas game theorists and logicians use formal methods to investigate ideal strategic behavior, many cognitive scientists use computational cognitive models of the human mind to predict and simulate human behavior. In this paper, we aim to bring these fields closer together by creating a generic translation system which, starting from a strategy for a turn-based game represented in formal logic, automatically generates a computational model in the primitive information processing elements (PRIMs) cognitive architecture, which has been validated on various experiments in cognitive psychology. The PRIMs models can be run and fitted to participants’ data in terms of decisions, response times, and answers to questions. As a proof of concept, we run computational modeling experiments on the basis of a game-theoretic experiment about the turn-based game “marble drop with surprising opponent”, in which the opponent often starts with a seemingly irrational move. We run such models starting from logical representations of several strategies, such as backward induction and extensive-form rationalizability, as well as different player types according to stance towards risk and level of theory of mind. Hereby, response times and decisions for such centipede-like games are generated, which in turn leads to concrete predictions for future experiments with human participants. Such precise predictions about different aspects, including reaction times, eye movements and active brain areas, cannot be derived on the basis of a strategy logic by itself: the computational cognitive models play a vital role and our generic translation system makes their construction more efficient and systematic than before.

MSC:

91A18 Games in extensive form
91A26 Rationality and learning in game theory
91A90 Experimental studies
03B42 Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Osborne, M.J.; Rubinstein, A.; ; A Course in Game Theory: Cambridge, MA, USA 1994; . · Zbl 1194.91003
[2] Benthem, J.V.; Games in dynamic-epistemic logic; Bull. Econ. Res.: 2001; Volume 53 ,219-248. · Zbl 1230.03046
[3] Bonanno, G.; Belief revision in a temporal framework; Logic and Foundations of Games and Decision Theory: Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2006; ,43-50.
[4] Benthem, J.V.; Dynamic logic for belief revision; J. Appl. Non-Class. Logic: 2007; Volume 17 ,129-155. · Zbl 1186.03033
[5] Ramanujam, R.; Simon, S.; A logical structure for strategies; Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 7): Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2008; Volume Volume 3 ,183-208.
[6] Ghosh, S.; Strategies made explicit in Dynamic Game Logic; Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic and Intelligent Interaction: Toulouse, France 2008; .
[7] Ghosh, S.; Ramanujam, R.; Strategies in games: A logic-automata study; Lectures on Logic and Computation: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2012; ,110-159. · Zbl 1250.03064
[8] McKelvey, R.D.; Palfrey, T.R.; An experimental study of the centipede game; Econom. J. Econom. Soc.: 1992; Volume 60 ,803-836. · Zbl 0764.90093
[9] Ghosh, S.; Heifetz, A.; Verbrugge, R.; Do players reason by forward induction in dynamic perfect information games?; Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK XV): 2015; ,121-130.
[10] Ghosh, S.; Heifetz, A.; Verbrugge, R.; De Weerd, H.; What drives people’s choices in turn-taking games, if not game-theoretic rationality?; Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK XVI): 2017; ,265-284.
[11] Nowak, M.A.; ; Evolutionary Dynamics: Cambridge, MA, USA 2006; . · Zbl 1098.92051
[12] De Weerd, H.; Verbrugge, R.; Evolution of altruistic punishment in heterogeneous populations; J. Theor. Biol.: 2011; Volume 290 ,88-103. · Zbl 1397.92781
[13] Gintis, H.; ; The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences: Princeton, NJ, USA 2009; . · Zbl 1168.91006
[14] Perc, M.; Jordan, J.J.; Rand, D.G.; Wang, Z.; Boccaletti, S.; Szolnoki, A.; Statistical physics of human cooperation; Phys. Rep.: 2017; Volume 687 ,1-51. · Zbl 1366.80006
[15] Borst, J.; Taatgen, N.; van Rijn, H.; The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking; J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cognit.: 2010; Volume 36 ,363-382.
[16] Bergwerff, G.; Meijering, B.; Szymanik, J.; Verbrugge, R.; Wierda, S.; Computational and algorithmic models of strategies in turn-based games; Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: ; ,1778-1783.
[17] Lovett, M.; A strategy-based interpretation of Stroop; Cognit. Sci.: 2005; Volume 29 ,493-524.
[18] Juvina, I.; Taatgen, N.A.; Modeling control strategies in the N-back task; Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling: New York, NY, USA 2007; ,73-78.
[19] Anderson, J.R.; ; How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?: New York, NY, USA 2007; .
[20] Ghosh, S.; Meijering, B.; Verbrugge, R.; Strategic reasoning: Building cognitive models from logical formulas; J. Logic Lang. Inf.: 2014; Volume 23 ,1-29. · Zbl 1305.91051
[21] Ghosh, S.; Verbrugge, R.; Studying strategies and types of players: Experiments, logics and cognitive models; Synthese: 2018; ,1-43.
[22] Rosenthal, R.; Games of Perfect Information, Predatory Pricing and the Chain-Store Paradox; J. Econ. Theory: 1981; Volume 25 ,92-100. · Zbl 0467.90084
[23] ; Models of Strategic Reasoning: Logics, Games and Communities: New York, NY, USA 2015; Volume Volume 8972 . · Zbl 1327.91003
[24] Pearce, D.; Rationalizable strategic behaviour and the problem of perfection; Econometrica: 1984; Volume 52 ,1029-1050. · Zbl 0552.90097
[25] Meijering, B.; Taatgen, N.A.; van Rijn, H.; Verbrugge, R.; Modeling inference of mental states: As simple as possible, as complex as necessary; Interact. Stud.: 2014; Volume 15 ,455-477.
[26] Meijering, B.; van Rijn, H.; Taatgen, N.A.; Verbrugge, R.; I do know what you think I think: Second-order theory of mind in strategic games is not that difficult; Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society: ; ,2486-2491.
[27] Verbrugge, R.; Meijering, B.; Wierda, S.; van Rijn, H.; Taatgen, N.; Stepwise training supports strategic second-order theory of mind in turn-taking games; Judgm. Decis. Mak.: 2018; Volume 13 ,79-98.
[28] Bonanno, G.; Axiomatic characterization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic; Artif. Intell.: 2007; Volume 171 ,144-160. · Zbl 1168.03317
[29] Taatgen, N.A.; The nature and transfer of cognitive skills; Psychol. Rev.: 2013; Volume 120 ,439-471.
[30] Anderson, J.R.; Bothell, D.; Byrne, M.D.; Douglass, S.; Lebiere, C.; Qin, Y.; An integrated theory of the mind; Psychol. Rev.: 2004; Volume 111 ,1036-1060.
[31] Anderson, J.R.; Schooler, L.J.; Reflections of the environment in memory; Psychol. Sci.: 1991; Volume 2 ,396-408.
[32] Stevens, C.A.; Daamen, J.; Gaudrain, E.; Renkema, T.; Top, J.D.; Cnossen, F.; Taatgen, N.; Using cognitive agents to train negotiation skills; Front. Psychol.: 2018; Volume 9 ,154.
[33] Gradwohl, R.; Heifetz, A.; ; Rationality and Equilibrium in Perfect-Information Games: Evanston, IL, USA 2011; .
[34] Meijering, B.; Van Rijn, H.; Taatgen, N.A.; Verbrugge, R.; What eye movements can tell about theory of mind in a strategic game; PLoS ONE: 2012; Volume 7 .
[35] Michele Abrusci, V.; Ruet, P.; Non-Commutative Logic I: the Multiplicative Fragment; Ann. Pure Appl. Logic: 1999; Volume 101 ,29-64. · Zbl 0962.03054
[36] Chen, J.; Micali, S.; ; The Robustness of Extensive-Form Rationalizability: Cambridge, MA, USA 2011; .
[37] Wason, P.C.; Reasoning about a rule; Q. J. Exp. Psychol.: 1968; Volume 20 ,273-281.
[38] Camerer, C.; ; Behavioral Game Theory: Princeton, NJ, USA 2003; . · Zbl 1019.91001
[39] Benthem, J.V.; Logic and reasoning: Do the facts matter?; Stud. Logica: 2008; Volume 88 ,67-84. · Zbl 1149.03010
[40] Lambalgen, M.V.; Counihan, M.; Formal models for real people; J. Logic Lang. Inf.: 2008; Volume 17 ,385-389. · Zbl 1157.91443
[41] Verbrugge, R.; Logic and social cognition: The facts matter, and so do computational models; J. Philos. Logic: 2009; Volume 38 ,649-680. · Zbl 1208.03022
[42] Baggio, G.; Lambalgen, M.V.; Hagoort, P.; Logic as Marr’s computational level: Four case studies; Top. Cognit. Sci.: 2015; Volume 7 ,287-298.
[43] Stenning, K.; Van Lambalgen, M.; ; Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science: Cambridge, MA, USA 2012; .
[44] Arslan, B.; Wierda, S.; Taatgen, N.; Verbrugge, R.; The role of simple and complex working memory strategies in the development of first-order false belief reasoning: A computational model of transfer of skills; Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling: ; ,100-105.
[45] Ghosh, S.; Padmanabha, A.; Revisiting games in dynamic-epistemic logic; Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Games and Decision Theory (LOFT 2018): 2018; .
[46] Marewski, J.N.; Mehlhorn, K.; Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making; Judgm. Decis. Mak.: 2011; Volume 6 ,439-519.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.