Reflexive theory-of-mind reasoning in games: from empirical evidence to modeling

Jun Zhang
{"title":"Reflexive theory-of-mind reasoning in games: from empirical evidence to modeling","authors":"Jun Zhang","doi":"10.1145/1807406.1807435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theory-of-mind (ToM) is the modeling of mental states (such as belief, desire, knowledge, perception) through recursive (\"I think you think I think ...\") type reasoning in order to plan one's action or anticipate others' action. Such reasoning forms the core of strategic analysis in the game-theoretic setting. Traditional analysis of rational behavior in games of complete information is centered on the axiom of \"common knowledge,\" according to which all players know something to be true, know that all players know it to be true, know that all players know all players know it to be true, etc. Such axiom requires recursive modeling of players to the full depth, and seems to contradict human empirical behavior revealed by behavioral game literature. Here, I propose that such deviation from normative analysis may be due to players' building predictive mental models of their co-players based on experience and context without necessarily assuming a priori full rationality and common knowledge, rather than due to any lapse in \"instrumental rationality\" whereby players (and co-players) translate the predictions from their mental models to optimal choice. I investigate this mental model account of theory-of-mind reasoning by constructing a series of two-player, sequential-move matrix games all terminating in a maximal of three steps. By carefully designing payoff matrices, the depth of recursive reasoning (i.e., first-order ToM versus second-order ToM) can be contrasted based on participants' choice behavior in those games. Empirical findings support the idea that depth of ToM recursion (related to perspective-taking) and instrumental rationality (rational application of belief-desire to action) constitute separate processes. Finally, I present a theoretical analysis of repeated games, such as the Iterated Prisoner Dilemma, and show how mutual cooperation can arise as individually rational outcome due to expected future interaction with the opponent.","PeriodicalId":142982,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Quantitative Game Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Quantitative Game Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1807406.1807435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theory-of-mind (ToM) is the modeling of mental states (such as belief, desire, knowledge, perception) through recursive ("I think you think I think ...") type reasoning in order to plan one's action or anticipate others' action. Such reasoning forms the core of strategic analysis in the game-theoretic setting. Traditional analysis of rational behavior in games of complete information is centered on the axiom of "common knowledge," according to which all players know something to be true, know that all players know it to be true, know that all players know all players know it to be true, etc. Such axiom requires recursive modeling of players to the full depth, and seems to contradict human empirical behavior revealed by behavioral game literature. Here, I propose that such deviation from normative analysis may be due to players' building predictive mental models of their co-players based on experience and context without necessarily assuming a priori full rationality and common knowledge, rather than due to any lapse in "instrumental rationality" whereby players (and co-players) translate the predictions from their mental models to optimal choice. I investigate this mental model account of theory-of-mind reasoning by constructing a series of two-player, sequential-move matrix games all terminating in a maximal of three steps. By carefully designing payoff matrices, the depth of recursive reasoning (i.e., first-order ToM versus second-order ToM) can be contrasted based on participants' choice behavior in those games. Empirical findings support the idea that depth of ToM recursion (related to perspective-taking) and instrumental rationality (rational application of belief-desire to action) constitute separate processes. Finally, I present a theoretical analysis of repeated games, such as the Iterated Prisoner Dilemma, and show how mutual cooperation can arise as individually rational outcome due to expected future interaction with the opponent.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
游戏中的反身性思维理论推理:从经验证据到建模
心理理论(Theory-of-mind, ToM)是通过递归(“我认为你认为我认为……”)类型推理对心理状态(如信念、欲望、知识、感知)进行建模,以便计划自己的行动或预测他人的行动。这种推理构成了博弈论背景下战略分析的核心。对完全信息博弈中理性行为的传统分析以“常识”公理为中心,根据这一公理,所有参与者都知道某件事是真的,知道所有参与者都知道它是真的,知道所有参与者都知道所有参与者都知道它是真的,等等。这样的公理要求对玩家进行深度的递归建模,这似乎与行为游戏文献所揭示的人类经验行为相矛盾。在这里,我认为这种与规范分析的偏差可能是由于玩家基于经验和情境建立了对其合作伙伴的预测性心理模型,而不必假设先验的完全理性和常识,而不是由于“工具理性”的失误,即玩家(和合作伙伴)将预测从他们的心理模型转化为最佳选择。我通过构建一系列两名玩家、顺序移动矩阵游戏来研究这种心智理论推理的心智模型,所有游戏都以最大三步结束。通过仔细设计收益矩阵,递归推理的深度(即一阶ToM与二阶ToM)可以根据参与者在这些游戏中的选择行为进行对比。实证研究结果支持ToM递归的深度(与换位思考有关)和工具理性(将信念-愿望理性地应用于行动)构成独立的过程。最后,我对重复博弈(如迭代囚徒困境)进行了理论分析,并展示了由于预期未来与对手的互动,相互合作如何成为个体理性的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Game theory and operations management Cost sharing in distribution problems for franchise operations Subgame-perfection in positive recursive games Rationalizability, adaptive dynamics, and the correspondence principle in games with strategic substitutes Structural estimation of discrete-choice games of incomplete information with multiple equilibria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1