Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-agent Decision System

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Systems Sciences

  • 3024 Accesses

Abstract

Multi-agent decision systems can be defined as systems in which several autonomous agents interact and make decisions according to their “internal models.” This view can be useful for understanding, analyzing, and predicting how human behaviors emerge from social interactions. Following an introduction to multi-agent decision systems, this chapter mainly discusses a game-theoretical framework called hypergame theory as their basic model. Game theory provides formal methods for modeling interactive decision-making. Unlike standard game theory that typically assumes common knowledge about the game structure, hypergames allow agents to perceive it in different ways and make decisions based on their own “subjective games.” Hypergame theory has been used in a variety of applications, from conflict analysis to business and management. This chapter provides an overview of its historical developments and several (past and future) research agendas. In addition, a related game-theoretical model called drama theory is briefly introduced. It deals with dynamic processes, where agents facing some dilemmas may redefine games during pre-play interactions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 649.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aljefri YM, Bashar MA, Fang L, Hipel KW (2017) First-level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 48(12):2158–2175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann RJ (1976) Agreeing to disagree. Ann Stat 4(6):1236–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5:749–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG, Dando MR (1979) Complex strategic analysis: a hypergame study of the fall of France. J Oper Res Soc 30(1):23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG, Dando MR (1982) The arms race as a hypergame: a study of routes towards a safer world. Futures 14(4):293–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG, Dando MR, Sharp RG (1980) Using hypergames to model difficult social issues: an approach to the case of soccer hooliganism. J Oper Res Soc 31:621–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P, Bryant J, Howard N (2001) Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant J (2007) Drama theory: dispelling the myths. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):602–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF (2011) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF, Ho TH, Chong JK (2004) A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Q J Econ 119(3):861–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharesifard B, Cortés J (2012) Evolution of players’ misperceptions in hypergames under perfect observations. IEEE Trans Autom Control 57(7):1627–1640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis H (2009) The bounds of reason: game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern JY, Rêgo LC (2014) Extensive games with possibly unaware players. Math Soc Sci 70:42–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (2006) Systems intelligence: a key competence in human action and organization life. SoL J 7(4):17–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1967/68) Games with incomplete information played by Bayesian players. Manag Sci 14:159–182, 320–334, 486–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Heifetz A, Meier M, Schipper BC (2006) Interactive unawareness. J Econ Theory 130(1):78–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heifetz A, Meier M, Schipper BC (2013) Dynamic unawareness and rationalizable behavior. Games Econ Behav 81:50–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1994) Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Group Decis Negot 3(2):187–206. and 207–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1998) n-person ‘soft’games. J Oper Res Soc 49(2):144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard N, Bennet P, Bryant J, Bradley M (1993) Manifesto for a theory of drama and irrational choice. J Oper Res Soc 44(1):99–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inohara T, Takahashi S, Nakano B (1997) Integration of games and hypergames generated from a class of games. J Oper Res Soc 48(4):423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa T, Ushio T, Yamasaki T (2007) Replicator dynamics of evolutionary hypergames. IEEE Transac Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 37(1):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko M, Matsui A (1999) Inductive game theory: discrimination and prejudices. J Public Econ Theory 1(1):101–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijima K (1996) An intelligent poly-agent learning model and its application. Inf Syst Eng 2:47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijima K (2002) Poly-agent systems theory: evolution model and its applications. In: Castell A, Gregory A, Hindle G, James M, Ragsdell G (eds) Synergy matters. Springer, Boston, p 577582

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovach NS, Gibson AS, Lamont GB (2015) Hypergame theory: a model for conflict, misperception, and deception. Game Theory 2015(570639):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy JK, Hipel KW, Howard N (2009) Advances in drama theory for managing global hazards and disasters. Part I: theoretical foundation. Group Decis Negot 18(4):303–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2011) Soft OR comes of age-but not everywhere! Omega 39(6):729–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myerson RB (1991) Game theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson RB (2004) Comments on “Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, I–III”: Harsanyi’s games with incomplete information. Manag Sci 50(12):1818–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash JF (1951) Noncooperative games. Ann Math 54:286–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne MJ, Rubinstein A (1994) A course in game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki Y (2014) Subjective rationalizability in hypergames. Adv Decis Sci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/263615

  • Sasaki Y, Kijima K (2012) Hypergames and Bayesian games: a theoretical comparison of the models of games with incomplete information. J Syst Sci Complex 25(4):720–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki Y, Kijima K (2016) Hierarchical hypergames and Bayesian games: a generalization of the theoretical comparison of hypergames and Bayesian games considering hierarchy of perceptions. J Syst Sci Complex 29(1):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki Y, Kobayashi N, Kijima K (2007) Mixed extension of hypergames and its applications to inspection games. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the ISSS, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki Y, Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (2015) Modeling systems of holding back as hypergames and their connections with systems intelligence. Syst Res Behav Sci 32(6):593–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1957) Models of man, social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1978) Rationality as process and as product of thought. Am Econ Rev 68(2):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B (2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1988) Modeling misperceptions in games. Behav Sci 33:207–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Hipel KW, Fraser NM (1989) Solution concepts in hypergames. Appl Math Comput 34(3):147–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss G (ed) (1999) Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Gakushuin University, Tokyo, Japan

    Yasuo Sasaki

Authors
  1. Yasuo Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuo Sasaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. InterConnections, LLC, Ashland, KY, USA

    Gary S. Metcalf

  2. Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Kyoichi Kijima

  3. CABSSS, Tokyo Institute of Technology CABSSS, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroshi Deguchi

Section Editor information

  1. Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Tokyo Institute of Technology Grad Sch of Decision Sci & Tech, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Kyoichi Kijima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Sasaki, Y. (2021). Multi-agent Decision System. In: Metcalf, G.S., Kijima, K., Deguchi, H. (eds) Handbook of Systems Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5_49

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation