Kyoto University center launches memorial website for'genius' chimpanzee Ai, a chimpanzee known as a genius for her cognitive abilities, died on Jan. 9 at Kyoto University's Center for the Evolutionary Origins of Human Behavior. Ai was a research partner who taught me many things about the minds and existence of chimpanzees, as well as about humans, said Ikuma Adachi, 47, associate professor at the university, who worked with the chimpanzee for 18 years. Born in Africa, Ai arrived at the center in Inuyama, Aichi Prefecture, in 1977 at the age of 1. Adachi said she was curious and adapted well to a human-made environment. The Ai Project started in 1978 to investigate chimpanzees' thinking and language abilities. In 1985, a paper on Ai was published in the British scientific journal Nature. In 1989, she left the center using a key found nearby, drawing public attention.

When interacting with people, AI agents do not just influence the state of the world - they also influence the actions people take in response to the agent, and even their underlying intentions and strategies.

In human-AI collaborative tasks, the distribution of human behavior, influenced by mental models, is non-stationary, manifesting in various levels of initiative and different collaborative strategies. A significant challenge in human-AI collaboration is determining how to collaborate effectively with humans exhibiting non-stationary dynamics. Current collaborative agents involve initially running self-play (SP) multiple times to build a policy pool, followed by training the final adaptive policy against this pool. These agents themselves are a single policy network, which is $\textbf{insufficient for handling non-stationary human dynamics}$. We discern that despite the inherent diversity in human behaviors, the $\textbf{underlying meta-tasks within specific collaborative contexts tend to be strikingly similar}$. Accordingly, we propose $\textbf{C}$ollaborative $\textbf{B}$ayesian $\textbf{P}$olicy $\textbf{R}$euse ($\textbf{CBPR}$), a novel Bayesian-based framework that $\textbf{adaptively selects optimal collaborative policies matching the current meta-task from multiple policy networks}$ instead of just selecting actions relying on a single policy network. We provide theoretical guarantees for CBPR's rapid convergence to the optimal policy once human partners alter their policies. This framework shifts from directly modeling human behavior to identifying various meta-tasks that support human decision-making and training meta-task playing (MTP) agents tailored to enhance collaboration.

When interacting with people, AI agents do not just influence the state of the world -- they also influence the actions people take in response to the agent, and even their underlying intentions and strategies. Accounting for and leveraging this influence has mostly been studied in settings where it is sufficient to assume that human behavior is near-optimal: competitive games, or general-sum settings like autonomous driving alongside human drivers. Instead, we focus on influence in settings where there is a need to capture human suboptimality. For instance, imagine a collaborative task in which, due either to cognitive biases or lack of information, people do not perform very well -- how could an agent influence them towards more optimal behavior? Assuming near-optimal human behavior will not work here, and so the agent needs to learn from real human data.

A central goal in the cognitive sciences is the development of numerical models for mental representations of object concepts. This paper introduces Variational Interpretable Concept Embeddings (VICE), an approximate Bayesian method for embedding object concepts in a vector space using data collected from humans in a triplet odd-one-out task. VICE uses variational inference to obtain sparse, non-negative representations of object concepts with uncertainty estimates for the embedding values. These estimates are used to automatically select the dimensions that best explain the data. We derive a PAC learning bound for VICE that can be used to estimate generalization performance or determine a sufficient sample size for experimental design. VICE rivals or outperforms its predecessor, SPoSE, at predicting human behavior in the triplet odd-one-out task. Furthermore, VICE's object representations are more reproducible and consistent across random initializations, highlighting the unique advantage of using VICE for deriving interpretable embeddings from human behavior.

The advent of machine learning models that surpass human decision-making ability in complex domains has initiated a movement towards building AI systems that interact with humans. Many building blocks are essential for this activity, with a central one being the algorithmic characterization of human behavior. While much of the existing work focuses on aggregate human behavior, an important long-range goal is to develop behavioral models that specialize to individual people and can differentiate among them.To formalize this process, we study the problem of behavioral stylometry, in which the task is to identify a decision-maker from their decisions alone. We present a transformer-based approach to behavioral stylometry in the context of chess, where one attempts to identify the player who played a set of games. Our method operates in a few-shot classification framework, and can correctly identify a player from among thousands of candidate players with 98% accuracy given only 100 labeled games. Even when trained on amateur play, our method generalises to out-of-distribution samples of Grandmaster players, despite the dramatic differences between amateur and world-class players. Finally, we consider more broadly what our resulting embeddings reveal about human style in chess, as well as the potential ethical implications of powerful methods for identifying individuals from behavioral data.

Reinforcement learning has shown great promise for synthesizing realistic human behaviors by learning humanoid control policies from motion capture data. However, it is still very challenging to reproduce sophisticated human skills like ballet dance, or to stably imitate long-term human behaviors with complex transitions. The main difficulty lies in the dynamics mismatch between the humanoid model and real humans. That is, motions of real humans may not be physically possible for the humanoid model. To overcome the dynamics mismatch, we propose a novel approach, residual force control (RFC), that augments a humanoid control policy by adding external residual forces into the action space.

There are an increasing number of domains in which artificial intelligence (AI) systems both surpass human ability and accurately model human behavior. This introduces the possibility of algorithmically-informed teaching in these domains through more relatable AI partners and deeper insights into human decision-making. Critical to achieving this goal, however, is coherently modeling human behavior at various skill levels. Chess is an ideal model system for conducting research into this kind of human-AI alignment, with its rich history as a pivotal testbed for AI research, mature superhuman AI systems like AlphaZero, and precise measurements of skill via chess rating systems. Previous work in modeling human decision-making in chess uses completely independent models to capture human style at different skill levels, meaning they lack coherence in their ability to adapt to the full spectrum of human improvement and are ultimately limited in their effectiveness as AI partners and teaching tools. In this work, we propose a unified modeling approach for human-AI alignment in chess that coherently captures human style across different skill levels and directly captures how people improve. Recognizing the complex, non-linear nature of human learning, we introduce a skill-aware attention mechanism to dynamically integrate players' strengths with encoded chess positions, enabling our model to be sensitive to evolving player skill. Our experimental results demonstrate that this unified framework significantly enhances the alignment between AI and human players across a diverse range of expertise levels, paving the way for deeper insights into human decision-making and AI-guided teaching tools.

We initiate the study of $\textit{behavioral information design}$ through deep learning. In information design, a $\textit{sender}$ aims to persuade a $\textit{receiver}$ to take certain actions by strategically revealing information. We address scenarios in which the receiver might exhibit different behavior patterns other than the standard Bayesian rational assumption. We propose HAIDNet, a neural-network-based optimization framework for information design that can adapt to multiple representations of human behavior. Through extensive simulation, we show that HAIDNet can not only recover information policies that are near-optimal compared with known analytical solutions, but also can extend to designing information policies for settings that are computationally challenging (e.g., when there are multiple receivers) or for settings where there are no known solutions in general (e.g., when the receiver behavior does not follow the Bayesian rational assumption). We also conduct real-world human-subject experiments and demonstrate that our framework can capture human behavior from data and lead to more effective information policy for real-world human receivers.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.