Game theoretic machine learning methods can help explain long periods of conflict

May 13, 2010

Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute have developed new machine learning methods to study conflict. Their work appears in PLOS Computational Biology on May 13.

Quantitative studies of behavior traditionally rely on to investigate the logic of conflict. Game theory seeks to identify normative strategies that maximize payoffs for individuals in the face of uncertainty.

Although game theory has been very useful for determining which of a predefined set of strategies - for example, "tit for tat" - will be stable given certain assumptions, its has not proven to be very useful for determining what the natural strategy set is, or which strategies individuals are using out of equilibrium. Game theoretic models are also not practical for studying strategies when interactions involve multiple players interacting simultaneously. This is the case in many complex animal and human systems.

Santa Fe Institute Omidyar Postdoctoral Fellow Simon DeDeo and Institute faculty members Jessica Flack and David Krakauer developed the new method, which they call Inductive Game Theory, and applied it to a time series of fights gathered from detailed observations of an animal society .

"With these approaches, we can identify those strategies likely to generate periods of intense conflict," DeDeo says.

"Fights are not explained by 'rogue actors,' or single aggressive individuals, but by complex interactions among groups of three or higher, and the decision to fight is very much dependent on memory for what happened in previous conflicts," says Krakauer.

"These results suggest that individual agency has been over-emphasized in ," says Flack. "We need to re-examine the idea that a single individual or nation can cause turbulent periods in history and consider the possibility that what predicts long periods of conflict is how we respond to the actions of our friends and enemies in their conflicts."

"This new empirically-grounded approach to is a crucial step towards designing better methods for prediction, management and control," she says.

Explore further: Researcher figures out how sharks manage to act like math geniuses

Provided by Santa Fe Institute

4 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Clownfish provide clues to animal conflicts

Jul 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Animal societies are hotbeds of conflict and cooperation, with creatures helping each other one moment and fighting the next. Biologist Andrew Zink has developed a new theoretical framework ...

Statistcal Physics Offers Insight Into Moral Behavior

May 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- It seems a little strange for statistical physicists to consider questions of morality in behavior. However, that is is just what a study at ETH in Zurich, Switzeralnd, is doing. Led by Dirk Helbing, the ...

Bizarre bird behavior predicted by game theory

Feb 25, 2009

A team of scientists, led by the University of Exeter, has used game theory to explain the bizarre behaviour of a group of ravens. Juvenile birds from a roost in North Wales have been observed adopting the ...

The right honourable computer, barrister-at-law

Sep 04, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- European researchers have created a legal analysis query engine that combines artificial intelligence, game theory and semantics to offer advice, conflict prevention and dispute settlement ...

Why Are There Wars Without End

Oct 06, 2006

Even as events took place in September recognizing this year's International Day of Peace, most people would concede that some conflicts seem impossible to resolve. Indeed, of the twenty major armed conflicts waged around ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eachus
not rated yet May 13, 2010
In other words, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," or, "If you wish peace, prepare for war." It is not how B reacts to A (or vice-versa) in a potential conflict that determines the likelihood of future conflicts, it is the perceptions on the part of C, D, E, F, and G. Note the word perceptions. I don't know of anyone who has been in a combat situation who hasn't reacted pretty much the same way. Read Kipling for the flavor. The poem "If" will do:

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

But you can always find lots of people who never came within a thousand miles of a battlefield who will analyze the combat and reach conclusions about who is vulnerable and how. Those are the ones who keep the pot boiling.