Skip to main content

Incorporating Fairness into Agent Interactions Modeled as Two-Player Normal-Form Games

  • Conference paper
PRICAI 2012: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7458))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Many multi-agent interaction problems, like auctions and negotiations, can be modeled as games. Game theory, a formal tool for game analysis, thus can be used to analyse the strategic interactions among agents and facilitate us to design intelligent agents. Typically the agents are assumed individually rational consistent with the principle of classical game theory. However, lots of evidences suggest that fairness emotions play an important role in people’s decision-making process. To align with human behaviors, we need to take the effects of fairness motivation into account when analysing agents’ strategic interactions. In this paper, we propose a fairness model which incorporates two important aspects of fairness motivations, and the solution concept of fairness equilibrium is defined. We show that the predictions of our model successfully reflect the intuitions from both aspects of fairness motivations. Besides, some general results for identifying which outcomes are likely to be fairness equilibria are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Simon, H.: Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization 1, 161–176 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: A Short Introduction to Computational Social Choice. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 51–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Verbeeck, K., Nowé, A., Parent, J., Tuyls, K.: Exploring selfish reinforcement learning in repeated games with stochastic rewards. In: AAMAS, vol. 14, pp. 239–269 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rabin, M.: Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review 83, 1281–1302 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dawes, R.M., Thaleri, R.H.: Anomalies: Cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 187–198 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thaler, R.H.: Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science 4, 199–214 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M.: A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 817–868 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolton, G., Ockenfels, A.: Erc-a theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review 90, 166–193 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dufwenberg, M., Kirchsteiger, G.: A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 47, 268–298 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Falka, A., Fischbache, U.: A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54, 293–315 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. de Jong, S., Tuyls, K., Verbeeck, K.: Artificial agents learning human fairness. In: AAMAS 2008, pp. 863–870. ACM Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hao, J.Y., Leung, H.F.: Strategy and fairness in repeated two-agent interaction. In: ICTAI 2010, pp. 3–6 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H.: Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review 76, 728–741 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Camerer, C., Thaler, R.H.: Ultimatums, dictators, and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 209–219 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Agell, J., Lundberg, P.: Theories of pay and unemployment: Survery evidence from swedish manufacturing firms. Scandinavian Journal of Economics XCVII, 295–308 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bewley, T.: A depressed labor market as explained by participants. In: American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings vol. LXXXV, pp. 250–254 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leventhal, G., Anderson, D.: Self-interest and the maintenance of equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15, 57–62 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geanakoplos, J., Pearce, D., Stacchetti, E.: Psychological games and sequential rationality. Games and Economic Behavior 1, 60–79 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hao, J., Leung, Hf. (2012). Incorporating Fairness into Agent Interactions Modeled as Two-Player Normal-Form Games. In: Anthony, P., Ishizuka, M., Lukose, D. (eds) PRICAI 2012: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7458. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32695-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32695-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32694-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32695-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics