More Like this

1. Decisions, decisions, decisions: plant roots detect and respond to complex environmental cues

   https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16372  

   Callaway, Ragan M.; Li, Long (December 2019, New Phytologist)
2. Decisions Under Risk are Decisions Under Complexity

   Oprea, Ryan (November 2024, American Economic Review)

   This paper is forthcoming at the American Economic Review. 

   more » « less
3. Mental representations distinguish value-based decisions from perceptual decisions

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01911-2  

   Smith, Stephanie M.; Krajbich, Ian (August 2021, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review)

   null (Ed.)
4. Language-based decisions

   Bjorndahl, A.; Halpern, J. Y. (June 2021, 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
5. Sequential language-based decisions

   A. Bjorndahl; J. Y. Halpern (June 2023, Proceedings of Nineteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK))

   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