ArticleScientific reports2021
Human-agent coordination in a group formation game.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A new sociology of humans and machines.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coordination and cooperation between humans and autonomous agents in cooperative games raise interesting questions on human decision making and behaviour changes. Here we report our findings from a group formation game in a small-world network of different mixes of human and agent players, aiming to achieve connected clusters of the same colour by swapping places with neighbouring players using non-overlapping information. In the experiments the human players are incentivized by rewarding to prioritize their own cluster while the model of agents' decision making is derived from our previous experiment of purely cooperative game between human players. The experiments were performed by grouping the players in three different setups to investigate the overall effect of having cooperative autonomous agents within teams. We observe that the human subjects adjust to autonomous agents by being less risk averse, while keeping the overall performance efficient by splitting the behaviour into selfish and cooperative actions performed during the rounds of the game. Moreover, results from two hybrid human-agent setups suggest that the group composition affects the evolution of clusters. Our findings indicate that in purely or lesser cooperative settings, providing more control to humans could help in maximizing the overall performance of hybrid systems.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.