We conduct experiments in which humans repeatedly play one of two games against a
computer decision maker that follows either a reinforcement learning or an Experience
Weighted Attraction algorithm. Our experiments show these learning algorithms more
sensitively detect exploitable opportunities than humans. Also, learning algorithms
respond to detected payoff increasing opportunities systematically; however, the responses are too weak to improve the algorithms’ payoffs. Human play against various decision maker types doesn’t significantly vary. These factors lead to a strong linear relationship between the humans’ and algorithms’ action choice proportions that is suggestive of the algorithm’s best response correspondence.
By: Jason Shachat, James T. Swarthout
Published in: RC22601 in 2002
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOTICE:
This Research Report is available. This report has been submitted for publication outside of IBM and will probably be copyrighted if accepted for publication. It has been issued as a Research Report for early dissemination of its contents. In view of the transfer of copyright to the outside publisher, its distribution outside of IBM prior to publication should be limited to peer communications and specific requests. After outside publication, requests should be filled only by reprints or legally obtained copies of the article (e.g., payment of royalties). I have read and understand this notice and am a member of the scientific community outside or inside of IBM seeking a single copy only.
Questions about this service can be mailed to reports@us.ibm.com .