skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

This content will become publicly available on June 28, 2024

Title: Sequential language-based decisions
In earlier work, we introduced the framework of language-based decisions, the core idea of which was to modify Savage's classical decision-theoretic framework by taking actions to be descriptions in some language, rather than functions from states to outcomes, as they are defined classically. Actions had the form ``if psi then do phi''', where psi and phi$ were formulas in some underlying language, specifying what effects would be brought about under what circumstances. The earlier work allowed only one-step actions. But, in practice, plans are typically composed of a sequence of steps. Here, we extend the earlier framework to \emph{sequential} actions, making it much more broadly applicable. Our technical contribution is a representation theorem in the classical spirit: agents whose preferences over actions satisfy certain constraints can be modeled as if they are expected utility maximizers. As in the earlier work, due to the language-based specification of the actions, the representation theorem requires a construction not only of the probability and utility functions representing the agent's beliefs and preferences, but also the state and outcomes spaces over which these are defined, as well as a ``selection function'' which intuitively captures how agents disambiguate coarse descriptions. The (unbounded) depth of action sequencing adds substantial interest (and complexity!) to the proof.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1703846
NSF-PAR ID:
10414212
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of Nineteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK)
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ( , Proceedings of Eighteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK))
    null (Ed.)
    In Savage's classic decision-theoretic framework, actions are formally defined as functions from states to outcomes. But where do the state space and outcome space come from? Expanding on recent work by Blume, Easley, and Halpern [2006], we consider a language-based framework in which actions are identified with (conditional) descriptions in a simple underlying language, while states and outcomes (along with probabilities and utilities) are constructed as part of a representation theorem. Our work expands the role of language from that of Blume, Easley, and Halpern by using it not only for the conditions that determine which actions are taken, but also the effects. More precisely, we take the set of actions to be built from those of the form do(phi), for formulas phi in the underlying language. This presents a problem: how do we interpret the result of do(phi) when phi is underspecified (i.e., compatible with multiple states)? We answer this using tools familiar from the semantics of counterfactuals; roughly speaking, do(phi) maps each state to the ``closest'' phi-state. This notion of ``closest'' is also something we construct as part of the representation theorem; in effect, then, we prove that (under appropriate assumptions) the agent is acting as if each underspecified action is first made definite and then evaluated (i.e., by maximizing expected utility). Of course, actions in the real world are often not presented in a fully precise manner, yet agents reason about and form preferences among them all the same. Our work brings the abstract tools of decision theory into closer contact with such real-world scenarios. 
    more » « less
  2. ( , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)
    Research in artificial intelligence, as well as in economics and other related fields, generally proceeds from the premise that each agent has a well-defined identity, well-defined preferences over outcomes, and well-defined beliefs about the world. However, as we design AI systems, we in fact need to specify where the boundaries between one agent and another in the system lie, what objective functions these agents aim to maximize, and to some extent even what belief formation processes they use. The premise of this paper is that as AI is being broadly deployed in the world, we need well-founded theories of, and methodologies and algorithms for, how to design preferences, identities, and beliefs. This paper lays out an approach to address these problems from a rigorous foundation in decision theory, game theory, social choice theory, and the algorithmic and computational aspects of these fields. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research)
    In human-aware planning systems, a planning agent might need to explain its plan to a human user when that plan appears to be non-feasible or sub-optimal. A popular approach, called model reconciliation, has been proposed as a way to bring the model of the human user closer to the agent’s model. To do so, the agent provides an explanation that can be used to update the model of human such that the agent’s plan is feasible or optimal to the human user. Existing approaches to solve this problem have been based on automated planning methods and have been limited to classical planning problems only. In this paper, we approach the model reconciliation problem from a different perspective, that of knowledge representation and reasoning, and demonstrate that our approach can be applied not only to classical planning problems but also hybrid systems planning problems with durative actions and events/processes. In particular, we propose a logic-based framework for explanation generation, where given a knowledge base KBa (of an agent) and a knowledge base KBh (of a human user), each encoding their knowledge of a planning problem, and that KBa entails a query q (e.g., that a proposed plan of the agent is valid), the goal is to identify an explanation ε ⊆ KBa such that when it is used to update KBh, then the updated KBh also entails q. More specifically, we make the following contributions in this paper: (1) We formally define the notion of logic-based explanations in the context of model reconciliation problems; (2) We introduce a number of cost functions that can be used to reflect preferences between explanations; (3) We present algorithms to compute explanations for both classical planning and hybrid systems planning problems; and (4) We empirically evaluate their performance on such problems. Our empirical results demonstrate that, on classical planning problems, our approach is faster than the state of the art when the explanations are long or when the size of the knowledge base is small (e.g., the plans to be explained are short). They also demonstrate that our approach is efficient for hybrid systems planning problems. Finally, we evaluate the real-world efficacy of explanations generated by our algorithms through a controlled human user study, where we develop a proof-of-concept visualization system and use it as a medium for explanation communication. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ( , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

    Competition between traditional platforms is known to improve user utility by aligning the platform's actions with user preferences. But to what extent is alignment exhibited in data-driven marketplaces? To study this question from a theoretical perspective, we introduce a duopoly market where platform actions are bandit algorithms and the two platforms compete for user participation. A salient feature of this market is that the quality of recommendations depends on both the bandit algorithm and the amount of data provided by interactions from users. This interdependency between the algorithm performance and the actions of users complicates the structure of market equilibria and their quality in terms of user utility. Our main finding is that competition in this market does not perfectly align market outcomes with user utility. Interestingly, market outcomes exhibit misalignment not only when the platforms have separate data repositories, but also when the platforms have a shared data repository. Nonetheless, the data sharing assumptions impact what mechanism drives misalignment and also affect the specific form of misalignment (e.g. the quality of the best-case and worst-case market outcomes). More broadly, our work illustrates that competition in digital marketplaces has subtle consequences for user utility that merit further investigation.

     
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ( , Artificial intelligence)
    In multi-agent domains (MADs), an agent's action may not just change the world and the agent's knowledge and beliefs about the world, but also may change other agents' knowledge and beliefs about the world and their knowledge and beliefs about other agents' knowledge and beliefs about the world. The goals of an agent in a multi-agent world may involve manipulating the knowledge and beliefs of other agents' and again, not just their knowledge/belief about the world, but also their knowledge about other agents' knowledge about the world. Our goal is to present an action language (mA+) that has the necessary features to address the above aspects in representing and RAC in MADs. mA+ allows the representation of and reasoning about different types of actions that an agent can perform in a domain where many other agents might be present -- such as world-altering actions, sensing actions, and announcement/communication actions. It also allows the specification of agents' dynamic awareness of action occurrences which has future implications on what agents' know about the world and other agents' knowledge about the world. mA+ considers three different types of awareness: full-, partial- awareness, and complete oblivion of an action occurrence and its effects. This keeps the language simple, yet powerful enough to address a large variety of knowledge manipulation scenarios in MADs. The semantics of mA+ relies on the notion of state, which is described by a pointed Kripke model and is used to encode the agent's knowledge and the real state of the world. It is defined by a transition function that maps pairs of actions and states into sets of states. We illustrate properties of the action theories, including properties that guarantee finiteness of the set of initial states and their practical implementability. Finally, we relate mA+ to other related formalisms that contribute to RAC in MADs. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email