arXiv subjects

Elias Fernández Domingos

Publications and source records attributed to Elias Fernández Domingos.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The prospect of a fair outcome triggers prosocial behaviour in the Centipede Game

Human decision-making reflects not only material incentives, but also concern for others' gains and the ability to understand others. However, the extent to which sensitivity to fairness interacts with aspects of social cognition and affects sequential social interactions requires further understanding. Here, we address this question through a behavioural experiment on sequential exchanges of resources, represented by the Incremental Centipede Game (ICG). The design comprises a "zero-end" treatment (n=164), where the ICG has a deadline yielding no payoff, and a "fair-end" treatment (n=162), where the last interaction leads to a fair outcome. The ICG, which is repeated twice, is complemented by two individual tasks: the Social Value Orientation task (SVO), to elicit social preferences, and the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), to assess participants' deliberation. Our results show that the fair outcome, though uncertain, prompts participants to move beyond self-interest. Indeed, an evolutionary model shows that the fair split shifts play towards a mutually beneficial strategy when players are sufficiently prosocial and use probabilistic strategies. A second game repetition reinforces this pattern, with adaptation towards cooperation. Although CRT scores do not predict behaviour in the ICG, participants who deviate from game-theoretic rationality exhibit stronger prosociality in the SVO. Notably, in the fair-end treatment, some non-rational players are individualists, suggesting that the fair split may function as a nudge. In conclusion, our findings suggest that certain personal traits, such as social preferences, allow individuals to overcome self-interest to better align with their peers and achieve better collective outcomes in mixed-motive games.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Falling Behind Drives Unsafe Development in an Idealised AI Race Experiment

Technological races create tension between speed and safety: actors may gain by moving faster than competitors, even when risky development is harmful. This is prominent in debates about artificial intelligence (AI), where competitive pressure is often argued to incentivise riskier, less safety-conscious development. We study this using a framed behavioural experiment based on an idealised AI race, in which paired participants repeatedly chose between Safe and Unsafe development under an uncertain time horizon. Unsafe development gave faster progress and higher immediate payoffs but accumulated private risk up to a treatment-specific maximum of 10\%, 60\%, or 90\%; the race's competitive structure was held constant, and only this maximum risk varied. Neither the pre-registered comparison between risk levels nor the role of elicited risk preferences was supported by the data. Instead, exploratory analyses motivated by the task's repeated structure show that Unsafe behaviour is shaped less by risk preferences than by the evolving strategic state of the race: participants are more likely to choose Unsafe after their opponent does so, being ahead reduces Unsafe play while falling behind increases it, and first-round choices predict later behaviour. To interpret these effects we introduce a reduced evolutionary model with four strategies -- Always Safe, Always Unsafe, Conditionally Safe, and Conditionally Antisocial Safe -- which reproduces the treatment effect and shows how conditional Unsafe behaviour can be favoured by competitive race dynamics. Together, the experiment and model show that unsafe development can emerge from early behavioural momentum, opponent behaviour, and fear of falling behind, rather than from risk preferences alone, suggesting policy should focus on reducing competitive pressure and promoting cooperation in AI development rather than only individual risk.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Disentangling trust from cooperation: Evolution of trust as reduced monitoring in social dilemmas

It is commonly assumed that trust increases cooperation. However, game-theoretic models often fail to distinguish between cooperative actions and trust, making it difficult to independently measure trust and determine how its effects vary in different social dilemmas. To address this, we build on influential theories that equate trust with reduced monitoring of an agent's actions. We implement this as a heuristic that cognitively bounded agents can use in repeated games to avoid spending time and effort always monitoring their partner. Agents using this heuristic reduce monitoring of a partner's actions once a threshold level of cooperativeness has been observed -- providing a measurable and architecture-agnostic definition of trust. Using evolutionary game theory, we systematically analyse the success of strategies that use this trust heuristic across the entire space of two-player symmetric social dilemma games. We demonstrate that trust-as-reduced-monitoring facilitates cooperation in two different ways. First, when monitoring is costly, trust heuristics allow for higher levels of cooperation in social dilemmas where the temptation to defect is high. Second, when agents can make action errors, trust heuristics promote cooperation even in coordination problems. Our results disentangle trust from cooperation, and provide a behavioural measure of trust that applies across interaction types.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Defaults: a double-edged sword in governing common resources

Extracting from shared resources requires making choices to balance personal profit and sustainability. We present the results of a behavioural experiment wherein we manipulate the default extraction from a finite resource. Participants were exposed to two treatments -- pro-social or self-serving extraction defaults -- and a control without defaults. We examined the persistence of these nudges by removing the default after five rounds. Results reveal that a self-serving default increased the average extraction while present, whereas a pro-social default only decreased extraction for the first two rounds. Notably, the influence of defaults depended on individual inclinations, with cooperative individuals extracting more under a self-serving default, and selfish individuals less under a pro-social default. After the removal of the default, we observed no significant differences with the control treatment. Our research highlights the potential of defaults as cost-effective tools for promoting sustainability, while also advocating for a careful use to avoid adverse effects.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

The art of compensation: how hybrid teams solve collective risk dilemmas

It is widely known how the human ability to cooperate has influenced the thriving of our species. However, as we move towards a hybrid human-machine future, it is still unclear how the introduction of AI agents in our social interactions will affect this cooperative capacity. Within the context of the one-shot collective risk dilemma, where enough members of a group must cooperate in order to avoid a collective disaster, we study the evolutionary dynamics of cooperation in a hybrid population made of both adaptive and fixed-behavior agents. Specifically, we show how the first learn to adapt their behavior to compensate for the behavior of the latter. The less the (artificially) fixed agents cooperate, the more the adaptive population is motivated to cooperate, and vice-versa, especially when the risk is higher. By pinpointing how adaptive agents avoid their share of costly cooperation if the fixed-behavior agents implement a cooperative policy, our work hints towards an unbalanced hybrid world. On one hand, this means that introducing cooperative AI agents within our society might unburden human efforts. Nevertheless, it is important to note that costless artificial cooperation might not be realistic, and more than deploying AI systems that carry the cooperative effort, we must focus on mechanisms that nudge shared cooperation among all members in the hybrid system.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Delegation to autonomous agents promotes cooperation in collective-risk dilemmas

Home assistant chat-bots, self-driving cars, drones or automated negotiations are some of the several examples of autonomous (artificial) agents that have pervaded our society. These agents enable the automation of multiple tasks, saving time and (human) effort. However, their presence in social settings raises the need for a better understanding of their effect on social interactions and how they may be used to enhance cooperation towards the public good, instead of hindering it. To this end, we present an experimental study of human delegation to autonomous agents and hybrid human-agent interactions centered on a public goods dilemma shaped by a collective risk. Our aim to understand experimentally whether the presence of autonomous agents has a positive or negative impact on social behaviour, fairness and cooperation in such a dilemma. Our results show that cooperation increases when participants delegate their actions to an artificial agent that plays on their behalf. Yet, this positive effect is reduced when humans interact in hybrid human-agent groups. Finally, we show that humans are biased towards agent behaviour, assuming that they will contribute less to the collective effort.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

Timing uncertainty in collective risk dilemmas encourages group reciprocation and polarization

Human social dilemmas are often shaped by actions involving uncertain goals and returns that may only be achieved in the future. Climate action, voluntary vaccination and other prospective choices stand as paramount examples of this setting. In this context, as well as in many other social dilemmas, uncertainty may produce non-trivial effects. Whereas uncertainty about collective targets and their impact were shown to negatively affect group coordination and success, no information is available about timing uncertainty, i.e. how uncertainty about when the target needs to be reached affects the outcome as well as the decision-making. Here we show experimentally, through a collective dilemma wherein groups of participants need to avoid a tipping point under the risk of collective loss, that timing uncertainty prompts not only early generosity but also polarized contributions, in which participants' total contributions are distributed more unfairly than when there is no uncertainty. Analyzing participant behavior reveals, under uncertainty, an increase in reciprocal strategies wherein contributions are conditional on the previous donations of the other participants, a group analogue of the well-known Tit-for-Tat strategy. Although large timing uncertainty appears to reduce collective success, groups that successfully collect the required amount show strong reciprocal coordination. This conclusion is supported by a game theoretic model examining the dominance of behaviors in case of timing uncertainty. In general, timing uncertainty casts a shadow on the future that leads participants to respond early, encouraging reciprocal behaviors, and unequal contributions.

physics.soc-ph↗