[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.5555/3060621.3060740guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
Article

Predictive models of malicious behavior in human negotiations

Published: 09 July 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Human and artificial negotiators must exchange information to find efficient negotiated agreements, but malicious actors could use deception to gain unfair advantage. The misrepresentation game is a game-theoretic formulation of how deceptive actors could gain disproportionate rewards while seeming honest and fair. Previous research proposed a solution to this game but this required restrictive assumptions that might render it inapplicable to real-world settings. Here we evaluate the formalism against a large corpus of human face-to-face negotiations. We confirm that the model captures how dishonest human negotiators win while seeming fair, even in unstructured negotiations. We also show that deceptive negotiators give-off signals of their malicious behavior, providing the opportunity for algorithms to detect and defeat this malicious tactic.

References

[1]
Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M., Hindriks, K. and Jonker, C. 2015. Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: a comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems : 1-50.
[2]
Burton-Chellew, M. N. and West, S. A. 2012. Correlates of cooperation in a one-shot high-stakes televised prisoners' dilemma. PloS one 7(4): e33344.
[3]
Colman, A. M. 2003. Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behavioral and brain sciences 26(02): 139-153.
[4]
DeVault, D., Mell, J. and Gratch, J. 2015. Toward Natural Turn-Taking in a Virtual Human Negotiation Agent. AAAI Spring Symposium on Turn-taking and Coordination in Human-Machine Interaction , Stanford, CA, AAAI Press.
[5]
Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R. 2004. An agenda-based framework for multiissue negotiation. Artificial Intelligence 152(1): 1-45.
[6]
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. 1999. A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3): 817-868.
[7]
Gratch, J., Nazari, Z. and Johnson, E. 2016. The Misrepresentation Game: How to win at negotiation while seeming like a nice guy. International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , Singapore.
[8]
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K. W. and Van Vianen, A. E. M. 2000. The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81(2): 329-358.
[9]
Hindriks, K. and Tykhonov, D. 2008. Opponent modelling in automated multiissue negotiation using bayesian learning. Proceedings of AAMAS .
[10]
Hindriks, K. V. and Jonker, C. M. 2008. Creating human-machine synergy in negotiation support systems: Towards the pocket negotiator. Proceedings of the 1st International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation , ACM.
[11]
Jennings, N. R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A. R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Wooldridge, M. 2001. Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2).
[12]
Kraus, S., Hoz-Weiss, P., Wilkenfeld, J., Andersen, D. and Pate, A. 2008. Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 172(1): 1-18.
[13]
Naamani-Dery, L., Obraztsova, S., Rabinovich, Z. and Kalech, M. 2015. Lie on the fly: iterative voting center with manipulative voters . Proceedings AAAI , AAAI Press.
[14]
Nash Jr, J. F. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society : 155-162.
[15]
Nazari, Z., Lucas, G. and Gratch, J. 2015. Opponent Modeling for Virtual Human Negotiators. 15th Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents , Delft, Springer.
[16]
Nguyen, T. and Gratch, J. 2016. Misrepresentation Negotiation Games, Playa Vista, CA, University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies.
[17]
O'Connor, K. and Carnevale, P. 1997. A Nasty but Effective Negotiation Strategy: Misrepresentation of a Common-Value Issue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(5): 504-515.
[18]
Paulhus, D. L. and Williams, K. M. 2002. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality 36(6): 556-563.
[19]
Procaccia, A. D. 2013. Cake cutting: not just child's play. Communications of the ACM 56(7): 78-87.
[20]
Reilly, P. R. 2009. Was Machiavelli right? Lying in negotiation and the art of defensive self-help. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 24(3): 09-05.
[21]
Rosenfeld, A., Zuckerman, I., Segal-Halevi, E., Drein, O. and Kraus, S. 2014. NegoChat: a chat-based negotiation agent. Proceedings of AAMAS , Paris, France.
[22]
Schweitzer, M. E., Brodt, S. E. and Croson, R. T. A. 2002. Seeing and believing: visual access and the strategic use of deception. International Journal of Conflict Management 13(3): 258-375.
[23]
Thompson, L. L. 1991. Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Exp. Social Psychology 27(2): 161-179.
[24]
Traum, D., Gratch, J., Marsella, S., Lee, J. and Hartholt, A. 2008. Multi-party, Multi-issue, Multistrategy Negotiation for Multi-modal Virtual Agents. 8th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents , Tokyo, Japan, Springer.
[25]
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. and Sloetjes, H. 2006. Elan: a professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC .

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Trusted AI and the Contribution of Trust Modeling in Multiagent SystemsProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3306127.3331890(1644-1648)Online publication date: 8-May-2019

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
IJCAI'16: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
July 2016
4277 pages
ISBN:9781577357704

Sponsors

  • Sony: Sony Corporation
  • Arizona State University: Arizona State University
  • Microsoft: Microsoft
  • Facebook: Facebook
  • AI Journal: AI Journal

Publisher

AAAI Press

Publication History

Published: 09 July 2016

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 10 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Trusted AI and the Contribution of Trust Modeling in Multiagent SystemsProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3306127.3331890(1644-1648)Online publication date: 8-May-2019

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media