Sequential Game Model for Urban Emergency Human–Machine Collaborative Decision-Making
Source abstract
Abstract
Decision-making algorithms based on big data, artificial intelligence and other technologies are increasingly being applied to urban emergency decision-making, and urban smart emergency response is gradually appearing to be transformed from traditional empirical decision-making to human–machine collaborative decision-making. This paper explores the motivations for cooperative decision-making between leaders (human) and followers (machines) in urban emergency management in the presence of science and technology input spillovers. It focuses on the impact of human–machine cooperative decision-making on urban emergency response capacity, science and technology inputs and total urban emergency response benefits and discusses how to maximize the total benefits of urban emergency response under different levels of spillovers. In this paper, a three-stage dynamic game model is constructed: leaders and followers decide whether to establish a cooperative decision in the first stage; decide the level of science and technology inputs in the second stage; and compete for sequential decisions in the third stage. It was found that, firstly, unlike the case of static games, in sequential games, leaders and followers develop a willingness to cooperate in decision-making only when the spillover coefficients are in the lower range. Second, cooperative human–machine decision-making may diminish the importance of human experience in urban emergency management. Finally, the effectiveness of collaborative human–machine decision-making in urban emergencies deserves further research. The research in this paper provides recommendations for smart urban emergency management.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics · Safety and Risk Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110064, China
Faculty of International Social Sciences, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
School of Business, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
Funding
Liaoning Natural Science Foundation Doctoral Start-up Program
References (57)
Show source-provided references
1. Man-machine collaboration method for cataract capsulorhexis using virtual fixture10.1016/j.future.2019.01.032 ↗
2. Augmenting medical diagnosis decisions? An investigation into physicians’ decision-making process with artificial intelligence10.1287/isre.2020.0980 ↗
3. Integrated usage of artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things in logistics for decarbonization through paradox lens10.1016/j.tre.2024.103684 ↗
4. A human-robot co-manipulation approach based on human sensorimotor information10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2694553 ↗
5. Cooperating with machines10.1038/s41467-017-02597-8 ↗
6. What is consciousness, and could machines have it?10.1126/science.aan8871 ↗
7. Robot adaptation to human physical fatigue in human-robot cmanipulation10.1007/s10514-017-9678-1 ↗
8. Challenges of human-machine collaboration in risky decision-machine collaboration in risky decision-making10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0 ↗
9. Will you listen to a robot? Effects of robot ability, task complexity, and risk on human decision-making10.1080/01691864.2021.1974940 ↗
10. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments10.1038/nature22332 ↗
11. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 ↗
12. Human-machine collaboration in managerial decision making10.1016/j.chb.2021.106730 ↗
13. Modelling human cognition of abnormal machine behaviour10.1007/s42454-019-00002-x ↗
14. Machine behaviour10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y ↗
15. Analysis of collaborative urban public crisis governance in complex system: A Multi-agent Stochastic Evolutionary Game Approach10.1016/j.scs.2023.104418 ↗
16. How stress affects performance and competitiveness across gender
17. Predictive capability of cognitive ability and cognitive style for spaceflight emergency operation performance10.1016/j.ergon.2016.04.008 ↗
18. Human Decisions and Machine Predictions10.1093/qje/qjx032 ↗
19. Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and Selective Adherence to Algorithmic Advice10.1093/jopart/muac007 ↗
20. Yeung, K., and Lodge, M. (2019). Administration by Algorithm? Public Management Meets Public Sector Machine Learning. Algorithmic Regulation, Oxford Press.10.1093/oso/9780198838494.001.0001 ↗
21. Artificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy10.1177/0275074019856123 ↗
22. Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision-making10.1111/puar.13483 ↗
23. Big Data in the Policy Cycle: Policy Decision Making in the Digital Era10.1080/10919392.2015.1125187 ↗
24. A Meta-analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation: Implications for Understanding Autonomy in Future Systems10.1177/0018720816634228 ↗
25. Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err10.1037/xge0000033 ↗
26. Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence10.1093/jcr/ucz013 ↗
27. Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 ↗
28. The Human Factor in AI-based Decision-making
29. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x ↗
30. The Automation of Leadership Functions: Would People Trust Decision Algorithms10.1016/j.chb.2020.106635 ↗
31. People are Averse to Machines Making Moral Decisions10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 ↗
32. Diffusion model of multi-agent collaborative behavior in public crisis network based on complex network evolutionary game10.1051/ro/2024094 ↗
33. Green, B., and Chen, Y. (2019, January 29–32). Disparate Interactions: An Algorithm-in-the-loop Analysis of Fairness in Risk Assessments. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1145/3287560.3287563 ↗
34. Human Decision Making with Machine Assistance: An Experiment on Bailing and Jailing
35. In AI We Trust? Perceptions about Automated Decision-making by Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w ↗
36. Attachment and Trust in Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607 ↗
37. Influencing Factors and Action Paths for Public Crisis Governance Performance Improvement in Digital Twin Cities10.1108/LHT-08-2023-0332 ↗
38. Relationship between Student Pharmacist Decision Making Preferences and Experiential Learning10.5688/ajpe807119 ↗
39. Decision styles and their association with heuristic cue and decision-making rules10.1080/23311908.2023.2166307 ↗
40. Project managers and decision making: Conditional cognitive switching and rationally stepping up10.1016/j.lrp.2024.102414 ↗
41. Rational and Experiential Decision-Making Preferences of Third-Year Student Pharmacists10.5688/ajpe786120 ↗
42. Yin, M., Wortman Vaughan, J., and Wallach, H. (2019, January 4–9). Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland, UK.10.1145/3290605.3300509 ↗
43. Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A.M., and Wagner, A.R. (2016, January 7–10). Overtrust of Robots in Emergency Evacuation Scenarios. Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451740 ↗
44. Effects of Rational and Social Appeals of online Recommendation Agents on Cognition-and Affect-based Trust10.1016/j.dss.2016.03.007 ↗
45. Evaluating XAI: A Comparison of Rule-based and Example-based Explanations10.1016/j.artint.2020.103404 ↗
46. Transparency and Trust in Artificial Intelligence Systems10.1080/12460125.2020.1819094 ↗
47. Kizilcec, R.F. (2016, January 7–12). How Much Information? Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/2858036.2858402 ↗
48. Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers
49. Research joint ventures and R&D cartels
50. Research note: Channel structure with knowledge spillovers10.1287/mksc.1070.0285 ↗
51. The effect of entry on R&D networks10.1111/1756-2171.12250 ↗
52. Utilizing active learning strategies in machine-assisted annotation for clinical named entity recognition: A comprehensive analysis considering annotation costs and target effectiveness10.1093/jamia/ocae197 ↗
53. Accelerating reaction optimization through data-rich experimentation and machine-assisted process development10.1039/D4RE00141A ↗
54. Multiexperience-Assisted Efficient Multiagent Reinforcement Learning10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3264275 ↗
55. Assisted Shifting of Electricity Use: A Long-Term Study of Managing Residential Heating10.1145/3210310 ↗
56. Varga, B., Brand, T., Schmitz, M., and Hashemi, E. (2025). Interaction-Aware Model Predictive Decision-Making for Socially-Compliant Autonomous Driving in Mixed Urban Traffic Scenarios. arXiv.10.2139/ssrn.5014033 ↗
57. Varga, B., Yang, D., and Hohmann, S. (2023). Cooperative Decision Making in Shared Spaces: Making Urban Traffic Safer through Human Machine Cooperation. arXiv.10.1109/SISY60376.2023.10417908 ↗