1. Teaming up humans with autonomous synthetic characters Teaming up humans with autonomous synthetic characters 소프트웨어 에이전트 2009. 06. 06 이승현 2008 R. Prada, AI Communications vol.21, pp.80-103 2008

2. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Contents Introduction Fundamentals of Group Dynamics –Group –Interaction –Group structure SGD Model –Design specification Case study: Perfect Circle –Setting –Result Conclusion 1 /21

3. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Introduction Issue on synthetic characters –Making characters believable and creating the illusion of life Problems –Lack of necessary social skills to interact in a group –Limited role and autonomy Goal –Create team-oriented autonomous agents with social skills –Create characters which are able to behave coherently with the group’s composition, context and structure Theoretical basis –Human social psychological sciences 2 / 21

4. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Fundamentals of Group Dynamics Definition of group –Interaction –Interdependency –Mutual perception and identification Group dynamics –System and Interaction theories[Cartwright and Zander, 1968] 3 / 21 Group

5. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Fundamentals of Group Dynamics Interaction Process Analysis[Bales, 1950] –Two classes of problems 4 / 21 Interaction Instrumental Problems Active Interaction Passive Interaction Socio-emotional Problems Possitive PassiveNegative Interaction

6. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Fundamentals of Group Dynamics Main influential factors on group structure[Jesuino, 2000] –Structure of communication –Structure of social power –Structure of social attraction Social Power[French & Raven, 1968] : Potential influence exerted by a social agent on a person 5 / 21 Group Structure Categorydescription Reward power based on perceived ability to mediate rewards Coercive power based on the perceived ability to mediate punishments Legitimate power based on the perception that someone has the right to prescribe given behaviours Referent power based on perceived associations between the person and the social agent Expert power based on the perceived distinctive knowledge, expertness, abilities or skills Information power based on the perceived control of the information needed

7. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Fundamentals of Group Dynamics Social attraction : affective attitude of each member of the group towards the other members [Moreno, 1934] –Balance Theory [Heider, 1946] : people have to maintain balanced cognitive configurations Concept of a POX triple which represents a cognitive configuration 6 / 21 Group Structure Stable POX cognitive configurations Unstable POX cognitive configurations

8. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Synthetic Group Dynamics(SGD) Model –Principle Must be aware of the other members and the group itself Able to build proper knowledge regarding group’s social structure Able to use the knowledge to drive its behavior –Target groups Group = Human user + several autonomous synthetic characters Small groups with only a few members Groups without a strong organizational structure 7 / 21 Principle and Target

9. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Structure of SGD model(overview) 8 / 21 Overview

10. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Design of individual –Agent’s abilities Levels of expertise of which agent can perform Used when define agent’s position in a group –Agent’s personality(Five Factor Model, 1996) Extraversion : Dominant initiative of the agent : Influence on the agent’s frequency of interaction Agreeableness : Socio-emotional orientation of the agent ex) Agreeable agent, less agreeable agents Knowledge base 9 / 21 Individual Level

11. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Design of group –Group identity: name –Composition: set of individuals that are associated with the group –Structure(Based on Jesuino’s) Social attraction: interpersonal attraction of the members ex) like, dislike Social influence: relation of power ex) power one can exert, power one is able to resist Knowledge base –Group-individual relation 10 / 21 Group Level

12. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Design of interaction Predicate and function(Knowledge base) 11 / 21 Interaction Level Action Type or pattern of interaction Performers Agents that are engaged in the execution of the interaction Supporters Agents that support the interaction without being directly involved Targets Agents that are affected by the interaction Strength Relative importance of the interaction

13. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Classification of interaction(Based on Bale’s IPA system) 12 / 21 Interaction Level

14. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Dynamics of the interaction –Agent’s motivation, group position, personality  Frequency –Agent’s personalities  Tendencies of social emotional interactions –Level of expertise  Instrumental interactions –Agent’s position  Socio-emotional interactions 13 / 21 Interaction Level

15. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model(Continued) 14 / 21 Interaction Level

16. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model(Continued) 15 / 21 Interaction Level

17. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA SGD Model Behavior generation(Algorithm) 16 / 21 Behavior Generation

18. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Case Study: Perfect Circle Perfect Circle: the Quest for the Rainbow Pearl –Collaborative game –4 autonomous characters and 1 user-controlled characters Game mechanism(overview) Design criterion[Mennecke and Wheeler, 2004] –It is appropriate for all the subject –It promotes subject’s intellectual engagement –It has a good level of complexity –It is conjunctive –The differences in subject’s experiences 17 / 21 Implementation AbilityGemstonePortalMagic Item

19. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Case Study: Perfect Circle How SGD model is applied? –2 instrumental interactions Facilitate problem: interaction corresponds to the event of a successful execution of a manipulation on a gemstone Obstruct problem: corresponds to a failure –4 socio-emotional interactions Agree/ Disagree/ Encourage/ Discourage Intension is presented by the form of senteces ex)”I believe you”(positive), “Stop doing that”(negative) 18 / 21 Implementation

20. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Case Study: Perfect Circle Subjects: – 24 students of computer science(20 male, 4 females students) Independent variables –2 version of game(SGD model applied or not) –Two initial group structures(neutral/hostile) Dependent variables –Group trust/ Group identification/ Satisfaction Measures –Questionnaires (modified Allen’s version) –3 positive and 3 negative questions(7 level scale) –Reliability test: Cronbach’s Alpha value Procedure –2 Hours(30 min for learning, 1 hour for playing, 30 min for answering) –3 groups(without SGD, SGD with neural relation, SGD with hostile relation) 19 / 21 Experiments

21. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Case Study: Perfect Circle Result(Mann-Whitney test) –Synthetic characters with SGD mode  high level of trust –Low level of initial cohesion of the group(with SGD model)  Level of trust in a group is much higher  Better identification of themselves  Subjects were more satisfied 20 / 21 Result

22. S FT COMPUTING @ YONSEI UNIV. KOREA Conclusion Former collaboration games has lack of social interactions It suggests a way of making synthetic characters smarter based on some human social psychological theories –Concept of SGD model –Implementation: Perfect Circle Additional result –Low level of initial group cohesion can cause more user’s satisfaction 21 / 21

23. End of Document