Predicting focal point solution in divergent interest tacit coordination games

References

• Ajoudani, A., Zanchettin, A. M., Ivaldi, S., Albu-Schäffer, A., Kosuge, K., & Khatib, O. (2018). Progress and prospects of the human–robot collaboration. Autonomous Robots, 42(5), 957–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-017-9677-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer, K. J., & Kimes, R. V. (2008). Empirical characterization of random forest variable importance measures. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(4), 2249–2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2007.08.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagyaraj, S., Ravindran, G., & Shenbaga Devi, S. (2014). Analysis of spectral features of EEG during four different cognitive tasks. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 6(2), 725–734. ISSN : 0975-4024es.
   Google Scholar
• Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardsley, N., Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2009). Explaining focal points : Cognitive hierarchy theory versus team reasoning. The Economic Journal, 120(543), 40–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. J., & Jentsch, F. G. (2010). Human–robot interaction in future military applications. Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, E., & Kohavi, R. (1999). An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine Learning, 36(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007515423169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bett, Z., Poulsen, A., & Poulsen, O. (2016). The focality of dominated compromises in tacit coordination situations: Experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 60, 29–34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804315001433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., & Luini, L. (2017). Does focality depend on the mode of cognition? Experimental evidence on pure coordination games. Department of Economics, University of Siena.
   Google Scholar
• Binmore, K. (2007a). Game theory: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Binmore, K. (2007b). Playing for real: A text on game theory. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X244970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Campion, M. A., & Medsker, G. J. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborti, T., Kambhampati, S., Scheutz, M., & Zhang, Y. (2017). AI challenges in human-robot cognitive teaming. ArXiv Preprint, arXiv:1707.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, K. L., Zuckerman, I., Nau, D., & Golbeck, J. (2011). The life game: Cognitive strategies for repeated stochastic games. 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing, IEEE Computer Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 95–102.
   Google Scholar
• Chiang, I.-J., & Hsu, J. Y. (2002). Fuzzy classification trees for data analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 130(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00212-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, T.-M., Taleizadeh, A. A., & Yue, X. (2020). Game theory applications in production research in the sharing and circular economy era. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1681137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colman, A. M., & Gold, N. (2018). Team reasoning: Solving the puzzle of coordination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1770–1783. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1399-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., Cooke, N. J., Ball, J. T., Myers, C., Frieman, & Mary. (2015). Synthetic teammate communication and aerialvehicle – Synthetic task. 59th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, California, USA, 951–955.
   Google Scholar
• Dickert, A. (2016). Essays on bargaining and coordination games: The role of social preferences and focal points. University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Dietterich, T. G. (2000). Ensemble methods in machine learning. International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Cagliari, Italy, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S., & Smith, J. (2014). Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner’s dilemma game: Are there brains in games? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 51, 47–56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804314000342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faillo, M., Smerilli, A., & Sugden, R. (2013). The roles of level-k and team reasoning in solving coordination games. Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, N., Fekete, T., Gal, K., & Shriki, O. (2019). EEG-based prediction of cognitive load in intelligence tests. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 51 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804314000342
   Google Scholar
• Ganjisaffar, Y., Caruana, R., & Lopes, C. V. (2011). Bagging gradient-boosted trees for high precision, low variance ranking models. Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Gombolay, M., Craig, H., C., & Shah, J. (2015). Coordination of human-robot teaming with human task preferences. 2015 AAAI Fall Symposium Series,The Westin Arlington Gateway, Arlington, Virginia.
   Google Scholar
• Isoni, A., Poulsen, A., Sugden, R., & tsutsui, K. (2013). Focal points in tacit bargaining problems: Experimental evidence. European Economic Review, 59, 167–188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292112001602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isoni, A., Poulsen, A., Sugden, R., & Tsutsui, K. (2019). Focal points and payoff information in tacit bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 114, 193–214. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825619300090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isoni, A., Sugden, R., & Zheng, J. (2020). The pizza night game: Conflict of interest and payoff inequality in tacit bargaining games with focal points. European Economic Review, 127, 103428. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212030060X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
   Google Scholar
• Krockow, E. M., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. (2016). Exploring cooperation and competition in the Centipede game through verbal protocol analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(6), 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebrand, W. B., & Mccllntock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values : A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Velu, C., & R. Kashwan, K. (2012). Performance analysis for visual data mining classification techniques of decision tree, ensemble and SOM. International Journal of Computer Applications, 57(22), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.5120/9426-3874
   Google Scholar
• Mehta, J. (1997). Telling tales: Actors’ accounts of their behavior in coordination games. The 17th Arne Ryde Symposium, “Focal Points–Coordination, Complexity, and Communication in Strategic Contexts.”Trolleholm Castle, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994a). Focal points in pure coordination games: An experimental investigation. Theory and Decision, 36(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994b). The nature of salience: An experimental investigation of pure coordination games. American Economic Review, 84(3), 658–673. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90046-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2019). Modeling individual tacit coordination abilities. International Conference on Brain Informatics, Springer International Publishing Haikou, Hainan, China, 29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2020a). Collectivism-individualism: Strategic behavior in tacit coordination games. PloS One, 15(2), e0226929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226929
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2020b). Individual strategic profiles in tacit coordination games. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 63-78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2020c, June). The effect of individual coordination ability on cognitive-load in tacit coordination games. In NeuroIS retreat (pp. 244-252). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60073-0
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2020d). The effect of loss-aversion on strategic behaviour of players in divergent interest tacit coordination games. International Conference on Brain Informatics, Springer International Publishing, Padua, Italy, 41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., & Zuckerman, I. (2021). Topographic analysis of cognitive load in tacit coordination games based on electrophysiological measurements.NeuroIS Retreat, 2021,(pp.  180 - 190). http://www.neurois.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NeuroIS-Retreat-2021-Preprint-Proceedings.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Laufer, I., Zuckerman, I., & Zhang, T. (2018). The effect of culture and social orientation on player’s performances in tacit coordination games. International Conference on Brain Informatics, Springer International Publishing, Arlington, TX, USA, 437–447.
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, D., Zuckerman, I., & Laufer, I. (2020). Using a stochastic agent model to optimize performance in divergent interest tacit coordination games. Sensors, 20(24), 7026. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutlu, B., Terrell, A., & Huang, C. (2013). Coordination mechanisms in human-robot collaboration. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)- Workshop on Collaborative Manipulation, Tokyo, Japan, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.119.62292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opitz, D., & Maclin, R. (1999). Popular ensemble methods: An empirical study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.614
   Google Scholar
• Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen, A., Odile, P., & Tsutsui, K. (2012). Coordination and the effects of complexity, focality, and payoff asymmetry: Experimental evidence from pie games,CBESS (centre for behavioural and experimental social science) of UEA (University of East Anglia).
   Google Scholar
• Pulford, B. D., Colman, A. M., Lawrence, C. L., & Krockow, E. M. (2017). Reasons for cooperating in repeated interactions: Social value orientations, fuzzy traces, reciprocity, and activity bias. Decision, 4(2), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000057
   Google Scholar
• Pulford, B. D., Krockow, E. M., Colman, A. M., & Lawrence, C. L. (2016). Social value induction and cooperation in the centipede game. PLoS ONE, 11(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramchurn, S. D., Wu, F., Jiang, W., Fischer, J. E., Reece, S., Roberts, S., Rodden, T., Greenhalgh, C., & Jennings, N. R. (2016). Human–agent collaboration for disaster response. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9286-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray, W. J., & Cole, H. W. (1985). EEG alpha activity reflects attentional demands, and beta activity reflects emotional and cognitive processes. Science, 228(4700), 750–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3992243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rokach, L. (2010). Ensemble-based classifiers. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33(1–2), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-009-9124-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satimanon, T., & Weatherspoon, D. (2019). Food manufacturers’ sustainable product launch strategy: Game theory approach. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 31(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1520175
   Google Scholar
• Seni, G., & Elder, J. F. (2010). Ensemble methods in data mining: Improving accuracy through combining predictions. Synthesis Lectures on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(1), 1–126. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00240ED1V01Y200912DMK002
   Google Scholar
• Shah, J., Wiken, J., Williams, B., & Breazeal, C. (2011). Improved human-robot team performance using chaski, a human-inspired plan execution system. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction,Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, X., Qiu, L. Y., Fang, Z. G., Liu, X. Q., & Du, Y. Y. (2020). A game mechanism of individual value decision-making based on SVO differences. Complexity, 2020, 1–11. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2020/6530847/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sitzia, S., & Zheng, J. (2019). Group behaviour in tacit coordination games with focal points - an experimental investigation. Games and Economic Behavior, 117, 461–478. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825619301125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokić, M., Milovanović, D., Ljubisavljević, M. R., Nenadović, V., & Čukić, M. (2015). Memory load effect in auditory–verbal short-term memory task: EEG fractal and spectral analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 233(10), 3023–3038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4372-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, T. M. H., & Merritt, D. (2004). Values and lifestyles of individualists and collectivists: A study on Chinese, Japanese, British and US consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(5), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760410549140
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. D. (2005). Classification and regression trees, bagging, and boosting. In C. R. Rao, E. J. Wegman, J. L. Solka (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics (Vol. 24, Issue 4). (pp. 303-329), Elsevier Masson SAS. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(04)24011-1
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice : A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahidnia, M. H., Vafaeinejad, A., & Shafiei, M. (2019). No TitlHeuristic game-theoretic equilibrium establishment with application to task distribution among agents in spatial networkse. Journal of Spatial Science, 64(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2017.1395773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733
   Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton university press.
   Google Scholar
• Vysocky, A., & Novak, P. (2016). Human - Robot collaboration in industry. MM Science Journal, 2016(2), 903–906. https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2016_06_201611
   Google Scholar
• Wernecke, K.-D., Possinger, K., Kalb, G., & Stein, J. (1998). Validating classification trees. Journal of Mathematical Methods in Biosciences, 40(8), 993–1005. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199812)40:8%3C993::AID-BIMJ993%3E3.0.CO;2-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, C., & Ma, Y. (2012). Ensemble machine learning: Methods and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Zuckerman, I., Cheng, K. L., & Nau, D. S. (2018). Modeling agent’s preferences by its designer’s social value orientation. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 30(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2018.1430856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuckerman, I., Kraus, S., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2012). The adversarial activity model for bounded rational agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(3), 374–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9153-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar