Effect of Adaptation Rate and Cost Display in a Human-AI Interaction Game

As interactions between humans and AI become more prevalent, it is critical to have better predictors of human behavior in these interactions. We investigated how changes in the AI's adaptive algorithm impact behavior predictions in two-player continuous games. In our experiments, the AI adapted its actions using a gradient descent algorithm under different adaptation rates while human participants were provided cost feedback. The cost feedback was provided by one of two types of visual displays: (a) cost at the current joint action vector, or (b) cost in a local neighborhood of the current joint action vector. Our results demonstrate that AI adaptation rate can significantly affect human behavior, having the ability to shift the outcome between two game theoretic equilibrium. We observed that slow adaptation rates shift the outcome towards the Nash equilibrium, while fast rates shift the outcome towards the human-led Stackelberg equilibrium. The addition of localized cost information had the effect of shifting outcomes towards Nash, compared to the outcomes from cost information at only the current joint action vector. Future work will investigate other effects that influence the convergence of gradient descent games.

Human adaptation to adaptive machines converges to game-theoretic equilibria

Adaptive machines have the potential to assist or interfere with human behavior in a range of contexts, from cognitive decision-making to physical device assistance. Therefore it is critical to understand how machine learning algorithms can influence human actions, particularly in situations where machine goals are misaligned with those of people. Since humans continually adapt to their environment using a combination of explicit and implicit strategies, when the environment contains an adaptive machine, the human and machine play a game. Game theory is an established framework for modeling interactions between two or more decision-makers that has been applied extensively in economic markets and machine algorithms. However, existing approaches make assumptions about, rather than empirically test, how adaptation by individual humans is affected by interaction with an adaptive machine. Here we tested learning algorithms for machines playing general-sum games with human subjects. Our algorithms enable the machine to select the outcome of the co-adaptive interaction from a constellation of game-theoretic equilibria in action and policy spaces. Importantly, the machine learning algorithms work directly from observations of human actions without solving an inverse problem to estimate the human's utility function as in prior work. Surprisingly, one algorithm can steer the human-machine interaction to the machine's optimum, effectively controlling the human's actions even while the human responds optimally to their perceived cost landscape. Our results show that game theory can be used to predict and design outcomes of co-adaptive interactions between intelligent humans and machines.