One of the challenges for agent-based modeling is being able to incorporate human behavior. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon, with strategic coalition formation being one form. A hybrid agent-based modeling approach, called ABMSCORE, has been derived to emulate strategic group formation. In this paper, we describe a simulation experiment to compare the ABMSCORE with actual human behavior. The comparison criterion is the respective rates of finding an ideal coalition. In our experimental design, we go to great lengths to ensure the similarity of the scenarios in the two trial types: trials with computerized agents only and trials involving human participants when one of the computerized agents is replaced by an actual human. We did this to limit the number of possible extraneous variables introduced into the experimental system. The scenario considered is the glove game, a standard cooperative game that has been previously used in human experiments. Our results indicate that the ABMSCORE model produces similar rates of finding the ideal coalition as the human players; however, there are some limitations. This research provides evidence for using the ABMSCORE modeling approach to model human strategic coalition formation in agent-based models.
AnLGrimmVTurnerII, BL. Editorial: meeting grand challenges in agent-based models. J Artif Soc Soc Simul2020; 23: 13.
2.
GamsonWA. A theory of coalition formation. Am Soc Rev1961; 26: 373–382.
3.
GilliesDB. Solutions to general zero-sum games. In: TuckerALuceR (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol. 4. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959, pp. 47–85.
4.
CamererCF. Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.
5.
PanticMPentlandANijholtA, et al. Human computing and machine understanding of human behavior: a survey. In: HuangTSNijholtAPanticM, et al. (eds) Artifical intelligence for human computing. Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp. 47–71.
6.
DuttonJMStarbuckWH. Computer simulation models of human behavior: a history of an intellectual technology. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb1971; SMC-1: 128–171.
7.
DuHJinTSongY, et al. A three-dimensional deep learning framework for human behavior analysis using range-Doppler time points. IEEE Geosci Rem Sens Lett2019; 17: 611–615.
NiklassonLEngströmHJohanssonU, et al. An adaptive rock, scissors and paper player based on a tapped delay neural network. In: Proceedings of the international conference on application and development of computer games in the 21st century (ADCOG), Hong Kong, China, 22–23 November 2001.
16.
BasGVan der LeiTE. Analysis of profit allocation strategies for competing networks by applying cooperative game theory within an agent-based model. In: Proceedings of the CESUN 2014: 4th international engineering systems symposium, Hoboken, NJ, 8–11 June 2014.
17.
NooriMEmadiAFazloulaR. An agent-based model for water allocation optimization and comparison with the game theory approach. Water Supply2021; 21: 3584–3601.
18.
GrigoryanGCollinsAJ. Game theory for systems engineering: a survey. Int J Syst Syst Eng2021; 11: 121–158.
19.
AdamiCSchossauJHintzeA. Evolutionary game theory using agent-based methods. Phys Life Rev2016; 19: 1–26.
20.
MansuryYDiggoryMDeisboeckTS. Evolutionary game theory in an agent-based brain tumor model: exploring the “genotype–phenotype” link. J Theor Biol2006; 238: 146–156.
21.
WoodADMasonCFFinnoffD. OPEC, the Seven Sisters, and oil market dominance: an evolutionary game theory and agent-based modeling approach. J Econ Behav Organ2016; 132: 66–78.
22.
HelbingDBrockmannDChadefauxT, et al. Saving human lives: what complexity science and information systems can contribute. J Stat Phys2015; 158: 735–781.
23.
KaviariFMesgariMSSeidiE, et al. Simulation of urban growth using agent-based modeling and game theory with different temporal resolutions. Cities2019; 95: 102387.
24.
YazanDMYazdanpanahVFraccasciaL. Learning strategic cooperative behavior in industrial symbiosis: a game-theoretic approach integrated with agent-based simulation. Bus Strateg Environ2020; 29: 2078–2091.
25.
De AndradePRMonteiroVCâmaraG. Game theory and agent-based modelling for the simulation of spatial phenomena. São José dos Campos, Brazil: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2010.
26.
LevyNKleinIBen-EliaE. Emergence of cooperation and a fair system optimum in road networks: a game-theoretic and agent-based modelling approach. Res Transp Econ2018; 68: 46–55.
27.
MarchC. Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: lessons from experiments with computer players. J Econ Psychol2021; 87: 102426.
28.
RothAEMurnighanJK. Equilibrium behavior and repeated play of the prisoner’s dilemma. J Math Psychol1978; 17: 189–198.
29.
MorehousLG. One-play, two-play, five-play, and ten-play runs of Prisoner’s Dilemma 1. J Conflict Resolut1966; 10: 354–362.
30.
Brown-KruseJL. Contestability in the presence of an alternate market: an experimental examination. RAND J Econ1991; 22: 136–147.
EpsteinJM. Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
33.
NorthMJMacalCM. Managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
34.
ThomasLC. Games, theory and applications. New York: Dover Publications, 2003.
35.
ChakravartySRMitraMSarkarP. A course on cooperative game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
36.
SeoaneMEGrecaIMArriassecqI. Epistemological aspects of computational simulations and their approach through educational simulations in high school. Simulation2020; 98: 87–102.
37.
LiuJMaT. How the timing of cooperation affects innovation outcomes: an agent-based model of postponing the coupled search process. Simulation2021; 97: 739–759.
38.
SchellingTC. Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Soc1971; 1: 143–186.
39.
WilenskyURandW. An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
40.
HughesHPCleggCWRobinsonMA, et al. Agent-based modelling and simulation: the potential contribution to organizational psychology. J Occup Organ Psychol2012; 85: 487–502.
41.
AnLZvoleffALiuJ, et al. Agent-based modeling in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS): lessons from a comparative analysis. Ann Assoc Am Geograph2014; 104: 723–745.
42.
GroeneveldJMüllerBBuchmannCM, et al. Theoretical foundations of human decision-making in agent-based land use models–a review. Environ Model Softw2017; 87: 39–48.
43.
ChengRMacalCMNelsonB, et al. Simulation: the past 10 years and the next 10 years. In: Proceedings of the 2016 winter simulation conference (eds RoederTMKFrazierPISzechtmanR, et al.), Arlington, VA, 11–14 December 2016, pp. 2180–2192. New York: IEEE.
44.
AnLGrimmVSullivanA, et al. Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in modeling agent-based complex systems. Ecol Model2021; 457: 109685.
45.
SchulzeJMüllerBGroeneveldJ, et al. Agent-based modelling of social-ecological systems: achievements, challenges, and a way forward. J Artif Soc Soc Simul2017; 20: 3423.
46.
LeeBChengSFKohA. An analysis of extreme price shocks and illiquidity among systematic trend followers. In: Proceedings of the 20th Asia-Pacific futures research symposium, Hong Kong, China, 25–26 February 2010.
47.
LeeSH. Integrated human decision behavior modeling under an extended belief-desire-intention framework. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, 2009.
48.
LiangYAnKYangG, et al. Contrarian behavior in a complex adaptive system. Phys Rev E2013; 87: 012809.
49.
ZhengWZLiangYHuangJP. Equilibrium state and non-eq1 steady state in an isolated human system. Front Phys2014; 9: 128–135.
50.
LiangYAnKYangG, et al. A possible human counterpart of the principle of increasing entropy. Phys Lett A2014; 378: 488–493.
51.
SongKAnKYangG, et al. Risk-return relationship in a complex adaptive system. PLoS ONE2012; 7: e33588.
52.
ZhaoLYangGWangW, et al. Herd behavior in a complex adaptive system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2011; 108: 15058–15063.
53.
CollinsAJPettyMVernon-BidoD, et al. A call to arms: standards for agent-based modeling and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul2015; 18: 1–12.
54.
NiaziMHussainA. Agent-based computing from multi-agent systems to agent-based models: a visual survey. Scientometrics2011; 89: 479–499.
55.
BonnevaySKabachiNLamureM, et al. Agent-based simulation of coalition formation in cooperative games. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, Compiegne, 19–22 September 2005.
56.
JanovskyPDeLoachSA. Multi-agent simulation framework for large-scale coalition formation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence (WI), Omaha, NE, 13–16 October 2016.
57.
NguyenPHKlingWLRibeiroPF. A game theory strategy to integrate distributed agent-based functions in smart grids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid2013; 4: 568–576.
58.
PelegBSudhölterP. Introduction to the theory of cooperative games. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media, 2007.
59.
ShapleyLS. A value for n-person games. In: KuhnHWTuckerAW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games II. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953, pp. 307–317.
60.
BeimbornD. The stability of cooperative sourcing coalitions-game theoretical analysis and experiment. Electron Mark2014; 24: 19–36.
61.
BerlJEMcKelveyRDOrdeshookPC, et al. An experimental test of the core in a simple n-person cooperative nonsidepayment game. J Conflict Resolut1976; 20: 453–479.
62.
BoltonGEChatterjeeKMcGinnKL. How communication links influence coalition bargaining: a laboratory investigation. Manage Sci2003; 49: 583–682.
63.
MonteroMSeftonMZhangP. Enlargement and the balance of power: an experimental study. Soc Choi Welf2008; 30: 69–87.
64.
MurnighanJKRothAE. The effects of communication and information availability in an experimental study of a three-person game. Manage Sci1977; 23: 1261–1365.
65.
MurnighanJKRothAE. Effects of group size and communication availability on coalition bargaining in a veto game. J Pers Soc Psychol1980; 39: 92–103.
66.
NeslinSAGreenhalghL. Nash’s theory of cooperative games as a predictor of the outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: an experiment in media purchasing. J Market Res1983; 20: 368–379.
67.
BanerjeeSKonishiHSönmezT. Core in a simple coalition formation game. Soc Choi Welf2001; 18: 135–153.
68.
GaleDShapleyLS. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Month1962; 69: 9–15.
69.
AzizH. Stable marriage and roommate problems with individual-based stability. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, St. Paul, MN, 6–10 May 2013, pp. 287–294. St. Paul, MN: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
70.
HartS. Nontransferable utility games and markets: some examples and the Harsanyi solution. Econometrica1985; 53: 1445–1450.
71.
HartSKurzM. Endogenous formation of coalitions. Econometrica1983; 51: 1047–1064.
72.
BrailsfordSCEldabiTKuncM, et al. Hybrid simulation modelling in operational research: a state-of-the-art review. Eur J Oper Res2019; 278: 721–737.
73.
CollinsAJFrydenlundE. Strategic group formation in agent-based simulation. Simulation2018; 94: 179–193.
74.
CollinsAJ. Strategically forming groups in the El Farol bar problem. In: Proceedings of the 2017 international conference of the computational social science society of the Americas, Santa Fe, NM, 19–22 October 2017.
75.
CollinsAJFrydenlundE. Agent-based modeling and strategic group formation: a refugee case study. In: Proceedings of the 2016 winter simulation conference (WSC), Washington, DC, 11–14 December 2016.
76.
CollinsAJKrejciCC. Understanding the impact of farmer autonomy on transportation collaboration using agent-based modeling. In: CarmichaelTYangZ (eds) Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the computational social science society of the Americas. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp. 201–213.
77.
HillRRChampagneLEPriceJC. Using agent-based simulation and game theory to examine the WWII Bay of Biscay U-boat campaign. J Def Model Simul Appl Methodol Technol2004; 1: 99–109.
78.
CoenC. Mixing rules: when to cooperate in a multiple-team competition. Simul Model Pract Theory2006; 14: 423–437.
79.
Dal FornoAMerloneU. Grounded theory based agents. In: Proceedings of the 2012 winter simulation conference (WSC), Berlin, 9–12 December 2012.
80.
PansiniRCampennìMShiL. Segregating socioeconomic classes leads to an unequal redistribution of wealth. Palgr Commun2020; 6: 1–10.
81.
TakkoT. Study on modelling human behavior in cooperative games. Espoo: Aalto University, 2019.
82.
LiXYangGAnK, et al. Human behavioral regularity, fractional Brownian motion, and exotic phase transition. Phys Lett A2016; 380: 2912–2919.
83.
SohnJW. A study on how market policy affects human market selection decision. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2013.
84.
CollinsAJ. Comparing agent-based modeling to cooperative game theory and human behavior. In: YangZvon BriesenE (eds) Proceedings of the 2020 conference of the computational social science society of the Americas, Virtual, 8–11 October 2020, pp. 1–13. Cham: Springer.
85.
JhangianiRSChiangIPricePC. Research methods in psychology. 2nd Canadian ed. Vancouver, BC: BCcampus, 2015.
86.
CollinsAJEtemadidavanS. Interactive agent-based simulation for experimentation: a case study with cooperative game theory. Modelling2021; 2: 425–447.
CardinotMO’RiordanCGriffithJ, et al. Evoplex: a platform for agent-based modeling on networks. SoftwareX2019; 9: 199–204.
89.
GrignardATaillandierPGaudouB, et al. GAMA 1.6: advancing the art of complex agent-based modeling and simulation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on principles and practice of multi-agent systems, 2013, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00932406/document
90.
LukeSSimonRCrooksA, et al. The MASON simulation toolkit: past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation, 2018, https://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/papers/mabs18.pdf
91.
CollinsAJEtemadidavanSPazos-LagoP, et al. A human experiment using a hybrid agent-based model. In: Proceedings of the 2020 winter simulation conference (WSC), Orlando, FL, 14–18 December 2020.
92.
HopeAC. A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B Methodol1968; 30: 582–598.
93.
MichailidisLBalaguer-BallesterEHeX. Flow and immersion in video games: the aftermath of a conceptual challenge. Front Psychol2018; 9: 1682.
EpsteinJM. Agent_Zero: toward neurocognitive foundations for generative social science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
96.
RescorlaRAWagnerAR. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: BlackAHProkasyWF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current theory and research: century psychology series. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972, pp. 64–99.
RossiG. Hamming distance between partitions, clustering comparison and information. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on pure mathematics, applied mathematics and computational methods, PMAMCM 2015 (ed IJRudas), Zakynthos Island, 16–20 July 2015, pp. 101–107, http://www.inase.org/library/2015/zakynthos/bypaper/MATH/MATH-19.pdf
