People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel games
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- People use quick, goal-oriented simulations to reason about new games
- This paper proposes a computational model of "intuitive game theory" to explain human strategic reasoning
- Experiments show people can quickly learn and make strategic decisions in novel games using this approach
Plain English Explanation
Humans are remarkably adept at understanding and playing novel games, even those with complex rules. This paper suggests that we do this by using a form of fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about the game.
Rather than explicitly calculating an optimal strategy, we seem to rapidly simulate potential moves and outcomes in our minds, focusing on achieving our goals. This "intuitive game theory" allows us to quickly learn the game's dynamics and make strategic decisions, without needing to fully comprehend all the underlying rules.
The researchers demonstrate this through experiments where people play novel games and exhibit this flexible, goal-driven reasoning. Even with limited training, participants are able to learn the games' mechanics and devise effective strategies, suggesting an innate human capacity for this type of strategic thinking.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a computational model of "intuitive game theory" to explain how people reason about novel strategic situations. The key components are:
-
Fast, goal-directed simulation: Rather than exhaustively analyzing all possible moves, people rapidly simulate potential sequences of actions focused on achieving their objectives.
-
Outcome prediction: The simulations estimate the likely outcomes of different moves, allowing people to assess the strategic value of their options.
-
Flexible strategy selection: People dynamically adjust their strategies based on the game's evolving dynamics, exhibiting more nuanced decision-making than simple rule-following.
Experiments show that even with minimal training, people can quickly learn the mechanics of novel games and devise effective strategies using this intuitive game theory approach. This suggests humans have a remarkable capacity for flexible, goal-oriented strategic reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling account of human strategic decision-making, but it also acknowledges several limitations and open questions:
- The experiments focus on relatively simple, two-player games, so it's unclear how well the model generalizes to more complex, multi-agent scenarios.
- The simulation process is not fully specified, leaving room for further refinement and validation.
- It's uncertain whether this intuitive game theory approach is truly "fast" compared to other potential cognitive mechanisms, or if it simply appears fast due to the limitations of the experiments.
Despite these caveats, the research provides a valuable step towards understanding the remarkable human capacity for strategic reasoning, with potential implications for the design of artificial intelligence systems and our understanding of cognitive processes.
Conclusion
This paper proposes a computational model of "intuitive game theory" to explain how people reason about novel strategic situations. By using fast, goal-directed simulations to predict outcomes and flexibly select strategies, humans exhibit a remarkable capacity for learning and decision-making in complex, dynamic environments.
The research offers insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying human strategic reasoning, with potential applications in the design of AI systems, the study of decision-making, and our understanding of the human mind. While the model has some limitations, it represents an important step towards a more comprehensive account of this fundamental aspect of human intelligence.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel games
Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins, Lionel Wong, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum
We can evaluate features of problems and their potential solutions well before we can effectively solve them. When considering a game we have never played, for instance, we might infer whether it is likely to be challenging, fair, or fun simply from hearing the game rules, prior to deciding whether to invest time in learning the game or trying to play it well. Many studies of game play have focused on optimality and expertise, characterizing how people and computational models play based on moderate to extensive search and after playing a game dozens (if not thousands or millions) of times. Here, we study how people reason about a range of simple but novel connect-n style board games. We ask people to judge how fair and how fun the games are from very little experience: just thinking about the game for a minute or so, before they have ever actually played with anyone else, and we propose a resource-limited model that captures their judgments using only a small number of partial game simulations and almost no lookahead search.
Read more7/22/2024
0
LogicGame: Benchmarking Rule-Based Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models
Jiayi Gui, Yiming Liu, Jiale Cheng, Xiaotao Gu, Xiao Liu, Hongning Wang, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, Minlie Huang
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated notable capabilities across various tasks, showcasing complex problem-solving abilities. Understanding and executing complex rules, along with multi-step planning, are fundamental to logical reasoning and critical for practical LLM agents and decision-making systems. However, evaluating LLMs as effective rule-based executors and planners remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce LogicGame, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the comprehensive rule understanding, execution, and planning capabilities of LLMs. Unlike traditional benchmarks, LogicGame provides diverse games that contain a series of rules with an initial state, requiring models to comprehend and apply predefined regulations to solve problems. We create simulated scenarios in which models execute or plan operations to achieve specific outcomes. These game scenarios are specifically designed to distinguish logical reasoning from mere knowledge by relying exclusively on predefined rules. This separation allows for a pure assessment of rule-based reasoning capabilities. The evaluation considers not only final outcomes but also intermediate steps, providing a comprehensive assessment of model performance. Moreover, these intermediate steps are deterministic and can be automatically verified. LogicGame defines game scenarios with varying difficulty levels, from simple rule applications to complex reasoning chains, in order to offer a precise evaluation of model performance on rule understanding and multi-step execution. Utilizing LogicGame, we test various LLMs and identify notable shortcomings in their rule-based logical reasoning abilities.
Read more9/6/2024
0
Autoformalization of Game Descriptions using Large Language Models
Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, Vince Trencsenyi
Game theory is a powerful framework for reasoning about strategic interactions, with applications in domains ranging from day-to-day life to international politics. However, applying formal reasoning tools in such contexts is challenging, as these scenarios are often expressed in natural language. To address this, we introduce a framework for the autoformalization of game-theoretic scenarios, which translates natural language descriptions into formal logic representations suitable for formal solvers. Our approach utilizes one-shot prompting and a solver that provides feedback on syntactic correctness to allow LLMs to refine the code. We evaluate the framework using GPT-4o and a dataset of natural language problem descriptions, achieving 98% syntactic correctness and 88% semantic correctness. These results show the potential of LLMs to bridge the gap between real-life strategic interactions and formal reasoning.
Read more9/20/2024
0
Learning to Play Video Games with Intuitive Physics Priors
Abhishek Jaiswal, Nisheeth Srivastava
Video game playing is an extremely structured domain where algorithmic decision-making can be tested without adverse real-world consequences. While prevailing methods rely on image inputs to avoid the problem of hand-crafting state space representations, this approach systematically diverges from the way humans actually learn to play games. In this paper, we design object-based input representations that generalize well across a number of video games. Using these representations, we evaluate an agent's ability to learn games similar to an infant - with limited world experience, employing simple inductive biases derived from intuitive representations of physics from the real world. Using such biases, we construct an object category representation to be used by a Q-learning algorithm and assess how well it learns to play multiple games based on observed object affordances. Our results suggest that a human-like object interaction setup capably learns to play several video games, and demonstrates superior generalizability, particularly for unfamiliar objects. Further exploring such methods will allow machines to learn in a human-centric way, thus incorporating more human-like learning benefits.
Read more9/24/2024