IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incomplete information about the partner affects the development of collaborative strategies in joint action

Author

Listed:
  • Vinil T Chackochan
  • Vittorio Sanguineti

Abstract

Physical interaction with a partner plays an essential role in our life experience and is the basis of many daily activities. When two physically coupled humans have different and partly conflicting goals, they face the challenge of negotiating some type of collaboration. This requires that both participants understand their partner’s state and current actions. But, how would the collaboration be affected if information about their partner were unreliable or incomplete? We designed an experiment in which two players (a dyad) are mechanically connected through a virtual spring, but cannot see each other. They were instructed to perform reaching movements with the same start and end position, but through different via-points. In different groups of dyads we varied the amount of information provided to each player about his/her partner: haptic only (the interaction force perceived through the virtual spring), visuo-haptic (the interaction force is also displayed on the screen), and partner visible (in addition to interaction force, partner position is continuously displayed on the screen). We found that incomplete information about the partner affects not only the speed at which collaboration is achieved (less information, slower learning), but also the actual collaboration strategy. In particular, incomplete or unreliable information leads to an interaction strategy characterized by alternating leader-follower roles. Conversely, more reliable information leads to more synchronous behaviors, in which no specific roles can be identified. Simulations based on a combination of game theory and Bayesian estimation suggested that synchronous behaviors correspond to optimal interaction (Nash equilibrium). Roles emerge as sub-optimal forms of interaction, which minimize the need to account for the partner. These findings suggest that collaborative strategies in joint action are shaped by the trade-off between the task requirements and the uncertainty of the information available about the partner.Author summary: Many activities in daily life involve physical interaction with a partner or opponent. In many situations, they have conflicting goals and need to negotiate some form of collaboration. Although very common, these situations have rarely been studied empirically. In this study, we specifically address what is a ‘optimal’ collaboration and how it can be achieved. We also address how developing a collaboration is affected by uncertainty about partner actions. Through a combination of empirical studies and computer simulations based on game theory, we show that subject pairs (dyads) are capable of developing stable collaborations, but the learned collaboration strategy depends on the reliability of the information about the partner. High-information dyads converge to optimal strategies in a game-theoretic sense. Low-information dyads converge to strategies that minimize the need to know about the partner. These findings are consistent with a game-theoretic learning model which relies on estimates of partner actions, but not partner goals. This similarity sheds some light on the minimal computational machinery which is necessary to an intelligent agent in order to develop stable physical collaborations with a human partner.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinil T Chackochan & Vittorio Sanguineti, 2019. "Incomplete information about the partner affects the development of collaborative strategies in joint action," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006385
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006385
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006385&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006385?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. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    2. Robert J van Beers, 2012. "How Does Our Motor System Determine Its Learning Rate?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Berger, Ulrich, 2007. "Brown's original fictitious play," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 572-578, July.
    4. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, December.
    5. Daniel A Braun & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel M Wolpert, 2009. "Nash Equilibria in Multi-Agent Motor Interactions," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
    6. Atsushi Takagi & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Toshinori Yoshioka & Mitsuo Kawato & Etienne Burdet, 2017. "Physically interacting individuals estimate the partner’s goal to enhance their movements," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    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. In, Younghwan, 2014. "Fictitious play property of the Nash demand game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 408-412.
    2. Berger, Ulrich, 2008. "Learning in games with strategic complementarities revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 292-301, November.
    3. Berger, Ulrich, 2007. "Two more classes of games with the continuous-time fictitious play property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-261, August.
    4. Galbiati, Marco & Soramäki, Kimmo, 2011. "An agent-based model of payment systems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 859-875, June.
    5. Ekmekci, Mehmet & Gossner, Olivier & Wilson, Andrea, 2012. "Impermanent types and permanent reputations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 162-178.
    6. Laurent Lamy, 2013. "“Upping the ante”: how to design efficient auctions with entry?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 194-214, June.
    7. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2021. "Discovery and equilibrium in games with unawareness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Mathieu Faure & Gregory Roth, 2010. "Stochastic Approximations of Set-Valued Dynamical Systems: Convergence with Positive Probability to an Attractor," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 624-640, August.
    9. Ianni, A., 2002. "Reinforcement learning and the power law of practice: some analytical results," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 203, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    10. ,, 2011. "Manipulative auction design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    11. Christian Ewerhart, 2020. "Ordinal potentials in smooth games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 1069-1100, November.
    12. Benaïm, Michel & Hofbauer, Josef & Hopkins, Ed, 2009. "Learning in games with unstable equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1694-1709, July.
    13. Saori Iwanaga & Akira Namatame, 2015. "Hub Agents Determine Collective Behavior," New Mathematics and Natural Computation (NMNC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(02), pages 165-181.
    14. Erhao Xie, 2019. "Monetary Payoff and Utility Function in Adaptive Learning Models," Staff Working Papers 19-50, Bank of Canada.
    15. Jacob W. Crandall & Mayada Oudah & Tennom & Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko & Sherief Abdallah & Jean-François Bonnefon & Manuel Cebrian & Azim Shariff & Michael A. Goodrich & Iyad Rahwan, 2018. "Cooperating with machines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
      • Abdallah, Sherief & Bonnefon, Jean-François & Cebrian, Manuel & Crandall, Jacob W. & Ishowo-Oloko, Fatimah & Oudah, Mayada & Rahwan, Iyad & Shariff, Azim & Tennom,, 2017. "Cooperating with Machines," TSE Working Papers 17-806, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
      • Abdallah, Sherief & Bonnefon, Jean-François & Cebrian, Manuel & Crandall, Jacob W. & Ishowo-Oloko, Fatimah & Oudah, Mayada & Rahwan, Iyad & Shariff, Azim & Tennom,, 2017. "Cooperating with Machines," IAST Working Papers 17-68, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
      • Jacob Crandall & Mayada Oudah & Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko Tennom & Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko & Sherief Abdallah & Jean-François Bonnefon & Manuel Cebrian & Azim Shariff & Michael Goodrich & Iyad Rahwan, 2018. "Cooperating with machines," Post-Print hal-01897802, HAL.
    16. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.
    17. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    18. Waters, George A., 2009. "Chaos in the cobweb model with a new learning dynamic," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1201-1216, June.
    19. William L. Cooper & Tito Homem-de-Mello & Anton J. Kleywegt, 2015. "Learning and Pricing with Models That Do Not Explicitly Incorporate Competition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 86-103, February.
    20. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.

    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:pcbi00:1006385. 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.