# Modeling factions for ‘effects based operations’, part II: behavioral game theory

- 174 Downloads
- 7 Citations

## Abstract

Military, diplomatic, and intelligence analysts are increasingly interested in having a valid system of models that span the social sciences and interoperate so that one can determine the effects that may arise from alternative operations (courses of action) in different lands. Part I of this article concentrated on internal validity of the components of such a synthetic framework—a world diplomacy game as well as the agent architecture for modeling leaders and followers in different conflicts. But how valid are such model collections once they are integrated together and used out-of-sample (see Sect. 1)? Section 2 compares these realistic, descriptive agents to normative rational actor theory and offers equilibria insights for conflict games. Sections 3 and 4 offer two real world cases (Iraq and SE Asia) where the agent models are subjected to validity tests and an effects based operations (EBO, as in Smith, Effects based operations: applying network-centric warfare in peace, crisis, and war, 2002) experiment is then run for each case. We conclude by arguing that substantial effort on game realism, best-of-breed social science models, and agent validation efforts is essential if analytic experiments are to effectively explore conflicts and alternative ways to influence outcomes. Such efforts are likely to improve behavioral game theory as well.

## Keywords

Political simulation Agent-based models Game theory Validation Policy analysis tools## Abbreviations

*S*2Pertains to dyadic scenarios, can be considered a simplified subgame in a triadic interaction. Dyadic scenarios are described without

*S*2 prefix*S*3Pertains to triadic scenarios

*S*3.1,*S*3.2,…,*S*3.6Each one is a triadic scenario

*S*2*x*[*FxFy*]Payoff to

*x*in a dyadic scenario, when Both*x*and*y*are fighting. Mutual conflict*S*2*x*[*FxCy*]Payoff to

*x*in a dyadic scenario, when*x*is fighting while*y*has compromised*S*2*x*[*CxFy*]Payoff to

*x*in a dyadic scenario, when*y*is fighting while*x*has compromised*S*2*x*[*CxCy*]Payoff to

*x*in a dyadic scenario, when both*x*and*y*have compromised. Mutual compromise*S*3*x*[*FxFy*,*FxFz*,*FyFz*]Payoff to

*x*in a triadic scenario, when*x*,*y*and*z*are fighting with each other. Mutual conflict*S*3*x*[*CxFy*,*CxFz*,*CyCz*]Payoff to

*x*in a triadic scenario, when the aggressors*y*and*z*independently attack a passive*x**S*3*x*[*CxCy*,*CxFz*,*CyFz*]Payoff to

*x*in a triadic scenario, when*z*attacks coalition of*x*and*y*, who do not fight back*S*3*x*[*CxCy*,*FxFz*,*FyFz*]Payoff to

*x*in a triadic scenario, when*z*is fighting with coalition of*x*and*y**S*3*x*[*CxCy*,*CxCz*,*CyCz*]Payoff to

*x*in a triadic scenario, when there is mutual cooperation/ compromise*i*Discount rate discounting future payoffs to account for time value of payoffs

*X*,*Y*,*Z*Leaders in the world. Also used as

*x*,*y*,*z*when subscripted*Q*(*D*)Level of attack

*D*=*j**Q*(*D*_{zx})Level of attack that denotes the attack is by leader

*Z*on leader*X**Q*(*D*_{z_xy})Level of attack where the attack is by leader

*Z*on the coalition of leader*X*and*Y**Q*(*D*_{ZY_X})Level of attack which denotes that the attack is by the coalition of leaders

*Z*and*Y*on leader*X**Rx*,*Ry*,*Rz*Total resources of

*X*,*Y*,*Z**R*2The total resources in a dyadic interaction

*Rx*+*Ry*=*R*2*R*3The total resources in triadic interaction be

*Rx*+*Ry*+*Rz*=*R*3*Rdy*Disputed or contested Resource share that belongs to Leader

*y*when both*x*and*y*are compromising*Rdx*Disputed or contested Resource share that belongs to Leader

*x*when both*x*and*y*are compromising*Rd*Total pool Disputed or contested Resource that will be shared by the Leaders, when both

*x*and*y*are compromising- Δ
*Kxy*(*Fx*,*Fy*) Changed in dyadic relationships between

*x*and*y*. This is a function of relationships between the leaders as well as the actions taken. This could also be described as Δ*Kxy*(*Dxy*,*Dyx*)- CstB (
*Dxy*) The cost of staging a battle in a dyadic interaction (

*x*launching a battle against*y*)*Px*Probability of winning in a battle, and is proportional to level (effort) of attack (

*Q*(*D*_{ yx })) and relative strength*Ry*/(*Rx*+*Ry*) of the attacker*⇒**Px*=(*Q*(*D*_{ yx })).*Ry*/(*Rx*+*Ry*)*Q*(*D*_{yx})(*Ry*/(*Rx*+*Ry*))*Rdx*The expected loss in a given battle for a target is proportional to the level of attack, likelihood of success and the level of resource contested. This is const.(relative strength of attacker)(contested resource of attacked)

*Q*(*D*_{zx})(*Rz*/*R*3)*Rdx*Expected losses to

*x*due to being attacked by*z*using relative resources available (*Rz*/*R*3). The attack takes place on the contested resource*Rdx*, which belongs to x- emV (
*Fx*,*Cy*) Emotional payoff (non-material utility) for

*X*from*X*fighting while*Y*compromising- emV
_{Tz}(*Fx*,*Cy*) Transitive emotion for

*z*, due to the interaction of*x*,*y*and*z**S**_*.*_**x*(*t*)Refers to the payoff for

*x*in scenario*S**_*.*_*occurring in time step*t*

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Armstrong JS (2002) Assessing game theory, role playing and unaided judgment. Int J Forecast 18:345–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Axelrod R, Bennett S (1993) A landscape theory of aggregation, Br J Political Sci Google Scholar
- Bharathy GK (2006) Agent based human behavior modeling: a knowledge engineering based systems methodology for integrating of social science frameworks for modeling agents with cognition, personality & culture. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania Google Scholar
- Camerer C (2003) Behavioral game theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
- Collier P, Hoeffler A (2001) Greed and grievance in civil war. World Bank, Washington. Available at www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/greedandgrievance.htm Google Scholar
- Dutta PK (2000) Strategies and games: theory and practice. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
- Epstein J, Steinbruner JD, Parker MT (2001) Modeling civil violence: an agent-based computational approach. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. Brookings, Washington Google Scholar
- Evans A (2006) Understanding madrasahs. Foreign Affairs, v.85, n.1, Jan/Feb Google Scholar
- Giocoli N (2003) Modeling rational agents: from interwar economics to early modern game theory. Elgar Publishing, London Google Scholar
- Green KC (2002) Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role playing and unaided judgment. Int J Forecast 18:321–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heuer RJ Jr (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington Google Scholar
- Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
- Kaneko M (1982). Some remarks on the folk theorem in game theory. Math Soc Sci 3(3) Google Scholar
- McCrabb MJ, Caroli JA (2002) Behavioral modeling and wargaming for effects-based operations. In: Proceedings of the military operations research society annual meeting. MORS, Washington Google Scholar
- Macy MW, Flache A (2002) Learning dynamics in social dilemmas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(3):7229–7236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parks CD, Rumble AC (2001) Elements of reciprocity and social value orientation. Pers Soc Psychol 27(10):1301–1309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pruitt DG, Kimmel MJ (1977) Twenty years of experimental gaming: critique, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Annu Rev Psychol 28:363–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sageman M (2005) Understanding terror networks. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Google Scholar
- Silverman BG, Bharathy G (2005) Modeling the personality & cognition of leaders. In: 14th conference on behavioral representations in modeling and simulation, SISO, May 2005. www.sisostds.org
- Silverman BG, Rees R et al. (2005) Athena’s prism: a diplomatic strategy role playing game for generating ideas and exploring alternatives. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligence analysis. Mitre, MacLean Google Scholar
- Silverman BG, Johns M, Cornwell J, O’Brien K (2006a) Human behavior models for agents in simulators and games, part I: enabling science with PMFserv. Presence 15(2) Google Scholar
- Silverman BG, O’Brien K, Cornwell J (2006b). Human behavior models for agents in simulators and games: part II: gamebot engineering with PMFserv. Presence 15(2) Google Scholar
- Silverman BG, Bharathy G, Nye B (2007a) Gaming and simulating ethnopolitical conflicts. In: Proceedings of the Descartes conference on mathematical modeling for counter-terrorism (DCMMC). Springer, New York Google Scholar
- Silverman BG, Bharathy GK, Johns, et al. (2007b) Socio-cultural games for training and analysis (submitted for publication). Available at: www.seas.upenn.edu/~barryg/CultureGames.pdf
- Smith EA Jr (2002) Effects based operations: applying network-centric warfare in peace, crisis, and war. Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program, Washington Google Scholar
- Wood EJ (2003) Distributional settlements and civil war resolution: stakes, expectations, and optimal agreements. J Confl Resol (under revision for re-submission) Google Scholar