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, December.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Adrian M Haith & David M Huberdeau & John W Krakauer, 2015. "Hedging Your Bets: Intermediate Movements as Optimal Behavior in the Context of an Incomplete Decision," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Filippini, Massimo & Hirl, Bettina & Masiero, Giuliano, 2018. "Habits and rational behaviour in residential electricity demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 137-152.
    7. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    8. Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Joseph E. Stiglitz & Tania Treibich, 2020. "Rational Heuristics? Expectations And Behaviors In Evolving Economies With Heterogeneous Interacting Agents," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1487-1516, July.
    9. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2012. "Unbeatable imitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 88-96.
    10. Andrea Insabato & Mario Pannunzi & Gustavo Deco, 2017. "Multiple Choice Neurodynamical Model of the Uncertain Option Task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-29, January.
    11. Ann-Kathrin Koessler & Stefanie Engel, 2021. "Policies as Information Carriers: How Environmental Policies May Change Beliefs and Consequent Behavior," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-31, July.
    12. Joeri Schasfoort & Antoine Godin & Dirk Bezemer & Alessandro Caiani & Stephen Kinsella, 2017. "Monetary Policy Transmission In A Macroeconomic Agent-Based Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(08), pages 1-35, December.
    13. Spiliopoulos, Leonidas, 2013. "Beyond fictitious play beliefs: Incorporating pattern recognition and similarity matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 69-85.
    14. Ooi, Chai-Aun & Hooy, Chee-Wooi, 2022. "Muslim CEOs, risk-taking and firm performance," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    15. Robinson, Scott A. & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Determinants of spatio-temporal patterns of energy technology adoption: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 273-284.
    16. David Ettinger & Philippe Jehiel, 2004. "Towards a Theory of Deception," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000247, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio & Diluiso, Francesca, 2024. "Climate actions, market beliefs, and monetary policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 176-208.
    18. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    19. Alexander Sohn, 2015. "Beyond Conventional Wage Discrimination Analysis: Assessing Comprehensive Wage Distributions of Males and Females Using Structured Additive Distributional Regression," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 802, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. Di Caprio, Debora & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J. & Tavana, Madjid, 2019. "The role of anticipated emotions and the value of information in determining sequential search incentives," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 6(C).

    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.