IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Latent goal models for dynamic strategic interaction

Author

Listed:
  • Shariq N Iqbal
  • Lun Yin
  • Caroline B Drucker
  • Qian Kuang
  • Jean-François Gariépy
  • Michael L Platt
  • John M Pearson

Abstract

Understanding the principles by which agents interact with both complex environments and each other is a key goal of decision neuroscience. However, most previous studies have used experimental paradigms in which choices are discrete (and few), play is static, and optimal solutions are known. Yet in natural environments, interactions between agents typically involve continuous action spaces, ongoing dynamics, and no known optimal solution. Here, we seek to bridge this divide by using a “penalty shot” task in which pairs of monkeys competed against each other in a competitive, real-time video game. We modeled monkeys’ strategies as driven by stochastically evolving goals, onscreen positions that served as set points for a control model that produced observed joystick movements. We fit this goal-based dynamical system model using approximate Bayesian inference methods, using neural networks to parameterize players’ goals as a dynamic mixture of Gaussian components. Our model is conceptually simple, constructed of interpretable components, and capable of generating synthetic data that capture the complexity of real player dynamics. We further characterized players’ strategies using the number of change points on each trial. We found that this complexity varied more across sessions than within sessions, and that more complex strategies benefited offensive players but not defensive players. Together, our experimental paradigm and model offer a powerful combination of tools for the study of realistic social dynamics in the laboratory setting.Author summary: Most studies of strategic decision making make use of simple tasks in which agents choose among only a limited number of distinct options. But real-world behavior is complex, requiring ongoing adjustment of strategies. Here, we propose a new model that is capable of reproducing the rich behavior of monkeys playing against each other in a dynamic decision task. Our model quantifies players’ goals at each moment and offers a means of performing controlled experiments via simulation. This makes possible more realistic experimental paradigms for the study of strategic decision making and social interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Shariq N Iqbal & Lun Yin & Caroline B Drucker & Qian Kuang & Jean-François Gariépy & Michael L Platt & John M Pearson, 2019. "Latent goal models for dynamic strategic interaction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006895
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006895
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006895&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006895?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arbora Resulaj & Roozbeh Kiani & Daniel M. Wolpert & Michael N. Shadlen, 2009. "Changes of mind in decision-making," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7261), pages 263-266, September.
    2. Gerd Gigerenzer & Reinhard Selten (ed.), 2002. "Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262571641, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    2. Christian Hilbe & Moshe Hoffman & Martin A. Nowak, 2015. "Cooperate without Looking in a Non-Repeated Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Andrew W. Bausch, 2014. "Evolving intergroup cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 369-393, December.
    4. Aspasia Tsaoussi & Eleni Zervogianni, 2010. "Judges as satisficers: a law and economics perspective on judicial liability," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 333-357, June.
    5. Mandel, Antoine & Taghawi-Nejad, Davoud & Veetil, Vipin P., 2019. "The price effects of monetary shocks in a network economy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 300-316.
    6. Zohar Z Bronfman & Noam Brezis & Marius Usher, 2016. "Non-monotonic Temporal-Weighting Indicates a Dynamically Modulated Evidence-Integration Mechanism," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Nicolas Marciales Parra, 2013. "A mathematical model for consumers based on aspiration adaptation theory and bounded rationality," Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, Pro Global Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 136-143, June.
    8. Binder, Carola C., 2017. "Measuring uncertainty based on rounding: New method and application to inflation expectations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Manuel Rausch & Michael Zehetleitner, 2019. "The folded X-pattern is not necessarily a statistical signature of decision confidence," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Giovanni Dosi & Marcelo C. Pereira & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2017. "The footprint of evolutionary processes of learning and selection upon the statistical properties of industrial dynamics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(2), pages 187-210.
    11. Simonovits, András & Vincze, János & Méder, Zsombor Zoltán, 2012. "Adómorál és adócsalás - társadalmi preferenciák és korlátozott racionalitás [Tax morale and tax system: social preferences and bounded rationality]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1086-1106.
    12. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Jens Weghake & Claudia Keser & Martin Schmidt & Mathias Erlei, 2018. "Pricing in Asymmetric Two-Sided Markets: A Laboratory Experiment," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0018, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    14. Creutzig, Felix, 2020. "Limits to Liberalism: Considerations for the Anthropocene," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Frank, Richard G. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2007. "Custom-made versus ready-to-wear treatments: Behavioral propensities in physicians' choices," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1101-1127, December.
    16. Gabriel A. Giménez-Roche, 2011. "A Socially Situated Praxeological Approach to Entrepreneurship," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 20(2), pages 159-187, September.
    17. Hamed M. Zolbanin & Dursun Delen & Durand Crosby & David Wright, 2020. "A Predictive Analytics-Based Decision Support System for Drug Courts," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1323-1342, December.
    18. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2012. "Unbeatable imitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 88-96.
    19. Michael H. Birnbaum & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Christoph Ungemach & Neil Stewart & Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca, 2016. "Risky Decision making: Testing for violations of transitivity predicted by an editing mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 75-91, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.