IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v29y2023i1d10.1007_s10588-022-09359-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disaster world

Author

Listed:
  • David V. Pynadath

    (University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies)

  • Bistra Dilkina

    (University of Southern California)

  • David C. Jeong

    (University of Southern California
    Santa Clara University)

  • Richard S. John

    (University of Southern California)

  • Stacy C. Marsella

    (University of Glasgow)

  • Chirag Merchant

    (University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies)

  • Lynn C. Miller

    (University of Southern California)

  • Stephen J. Read

    (University of Southern California)

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) research provides a rich source of modeling languages capable of generating socially plausible simulations of human behavior, while also providing a transparent ground truth that can support validation of social-science methods applied to that simulation. In this work, we leverage two established AI representations: decision-theoretic planning and recursive modeling. Decision-theoretic planning (specifically Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes) provides agents with quantitative models of their corresponding real-world entities’ subjective (and possibly incorrect) perspectives of ground truth in the form of probabilistic beliefs and utility functions. Recursive modeling gives an agent a theory of mind, which is necessary when a person’s (again, possibly incorrect) subjective perspectives are of another person, rather than of just his/her environment. We used PsychSim, a multiagent social-simulation framework combining these two AI frameworks, to build a general parameterized model of human behavior during disaster response, grounding the model in social-psychological theories to ensure social plausibility. We then instantiated that model into alternate ground truths for simulating population response to a series of natural disasters, namely, hurricanes. The simulations generate data in response to socially plausible instruments (e.g., surveys) that serve as input to the Ground Truth program’s designated research teams for them to conduct simulated social science. The simulation also provides a graphical ground truth and a set of outcomes to be used as the gold standard in evaluating the research teams’ inferences.

Suggested Citation

  • David V. Pynadath & Bistra Dilkina & David C. Jeong & Richard S. John & Stacy C. Marsella & Chirag Merchant & Lynn C. Miller & Stephen J. Read, 2023. "Disaster world," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 84-117, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:29:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-022-09359-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-022-09359-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koller, Daphne & Milch, Brian, 2003. "Multi-agent influence diagrams for representing and solving games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 181-221, October.
    2. Ronald A. Howard, 1988. "Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 679-695, June.
    3. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Factors Affecting Hurricane Evacuation Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1837-1857, October.
    4. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, 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. Dingde Xu & Zhuolin Yong & Xin Deng & Yi Liu & Kai Huang & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2019. "Financial Preparation, Disaster Experience, and Disaster Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence From the Wenchuan and Lushan Earthquakes in China’s Sichuan Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    3. Dingde Xu & Wenfeng Zhou & Xin Deng & Zhixing Ma & Zhuolin Yong & Cheng Qin, 2020. "Information credibility, disaster risk perception and evacuation willingness of rural households in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(3), pages 2865-2882, September.
    4. Dean Kyne & William Donner, 2018. "Kyne–Donner Model of Authority’s Recommendation and Hurricane Evacuation Decisions: A Study of Hypothetical Hurricane Event in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(6), pages 897-922, December.
    5. Shen, Jiayun & Murray-Tuite, Pamela & Wernstedt, Kris & Guikema, Seth, 2024. "Estimating pre-impact and post-impact evacuation behaviors – An empirical study of hurricane Ida in coastal Louisiana and Mississippi," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Ibraheem M. Karaye & Jennifer A. Horney & David P. Retchless & Ashley D. Ross, 2019. "Determinants of Hurricane Evacuation from a Large Representative Sample of the U.S. Gulf Coast," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-10, November.
    7. Laura N. Rickard & Z. Janet Yang & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Gina M. Eosco & Clifford W. Scherer & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2017. "Sizing Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2334-2349, December.
    8. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    10. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    12. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    13. Alan Brennan & Samer Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & Jim Chilcott, 2007. "Calculating Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information via Monte Carlo Sampling Algorithms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 448-470, July.
    14. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.
    15. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    16. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Julia S. Becker & Sally H. Potter & Lauren J. Vinnell & Kazuya Nakayachi & Sara K. McBride & David M. Johnston, 2020. "Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: a survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Grabisch, Michel & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2011. "Influence functions, followers and command games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 123-138, May.
    19. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    20. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.

    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:spr:comaot:v:29:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-022-09359-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.