↓ Skip to main content

Cooperating with machines

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
453 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
Title
Cooperating with machines
Published in
Nature Communications, January 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-02597-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob W. Crandall, Mayada Oudah, Tennom, Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko, Sherief Abdallah, Jean-François Bonnefon, Manuel Cebrian, Azim Shariff, Michael A. Goodrich, Iyad Rahwan

Abstract

Since Alan Turing envisioned artificial intelligence, technical progress has often been measured by the ability to defeat humans in zero-sum encounters (e.g., Chess, Poker, or Go). Less attention has been given to scenarios in which human-machine cooperation is beneficial but non-trivial, such as scenarios in which human and machine preferences are neither fully aligned nor fully in conflict. Cooperation does not require sheer computational power, but instead is facilitated by intuition, cultural norms, emotions, signals, and pre-evolved dispositions. Here, we develop an algorithm that combines a state-of-the-art reinforcement-learning algorithm with mechanisms for signaling. We show that this algorithm can cooperate with people and other algorithms at levels that rival human cooperation in a variety of two-player repeated stochastic games. These results indicate that general human-machine cooperation is achievable using a non-trivial, but ultimately simple, set of algorithmic mechanisms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 453 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 251 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 27%
Student > Master 39 15%
Researcher 36 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 24 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 81 32%
Psychology 28 11%
Engineering 24 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 58 23%
Unknown 39 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 510. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2019.
All research outputs
#17,771
of 14,358,717 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#280
of 26,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#853
of 264,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#21
of 1,088 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,358,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,088 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.