Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory"

Eugene Hampton
5 years ago
Views:

1 Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory Joe Halpern Cornell University Joint work with Larry Blume and David Easley Economics Cornell Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 1/21

2 Decision Making: Savage s Approach Savage s approach to decision making has dominated decision theory since the 1950 s. It assumes that a decision maker (DM) is given/has a set a set of states of outcomes A (Savage) act is a function from states to outcomes. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 2/21

3 Decision Making: Savage s Approach Savage s approach to decision making has dominated decision theory since the 1950 s. It assumes that a decision maker (DM) is given/has a set a set of states of outcomes A (Savage) act is a function from states to outcomes. Example: Betting on a horse race. = possible orders of finish = how much you win act = bet Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 2/21

4 Savage s Theorem Savage assumes that a DM has a preference order certain postulates: on acts satisfying E.g. transitivity: if and then. He proves that if a DM s preference order satisfies these postulates then the DM is acting as if he has a probability on states he has a utility function on outcomes he is maximizing expected utility: iff. : the utility of act in state Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 3/21

5 Are Savage Acts Reasonable? Many problems have been pointed out with Savage s framework. We focus on one: In a complex environment can a DM completely specify the state space or the outcome space? What are the states/outcomes if we re trying to decide whether to attack Iraq? What are the acts if we can t specify the state/outcome space? Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 4/21

6 Acts as Programs Claim: people don t think of acts as functions: We don t think of the state space and the outcomes when we contemplate the act Buy 100 shares of IBM! Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 5/21

7 Acts as Programs Claim: people don t think of acts as functions: We don t think of the state space and the outcomes when we contemplate the act Buy 100 shares of IBM! An alternative: instead of taking acts to be functions from states to outcomes we take acts to be syntactic objects essentially acts are programs that the DM can run. Call the stock broker place the order... Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 5/21

8 Acts as Programs Claim: people don t think of acts as functions: We don t think of the state space and the outcomes when we contemplate the act Buy 100 shares of IBM! An alternative: instead of taking acts to be functions from states to outcomes we take acts to be syntactic objects essentially acts are programs that the DM can run. Call the stock broker place the order... But if acts are programs: What is the programming language? What is the semantics of a program? Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 5/21

9 The Programming Language In this talk we consider only one programming construct: if... then... else If if and then are programs and else is a program is a test then if moon in seventh house then buy 100 shares IBM In the full paper we also consider randomization: With probability perform ; with probability perform Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 6/21

10 # "! # "! % $ & $ "! The Programming Language In this talk we consider only one programming construct: if... then... else If if and then are programs and else is a program is a test then if moon in seventh house then buy 100 shares IBM In the full paper we also consider randomization: With probability perform ; with probability perform Key point: We need to specify the language of tests The modeler and the DM may use different languages Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 6/21

11 ) ' Programming Language: Syntax Start with a set ' ( of primitive acts Buy 100 shares of IBM Attack Iraq A set ) ( of primitive tests (propositions) The price/earnings ratio is at least 7 The moon is in the seventh house Form the set of tests by closing off under conjunction and negation: tests are just propositional formulas Form the set of acts by closing off under if... then... else Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 7/21

12 Programming Language Semantics What should a program mean? In this paper we consider input-output semantics: A program defines a function from states to outcomes once we are given a state space and an outcome space a program determines a Savage act The state and outcome spaces are now subjective. Different agents can model them differently Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 8/21

13 * + * + * + 1- * * / + > = 3 > > = =? > > = = 7 7 Semantics: Formal Details Given a state space program as a function from a program interpretation program in / 0 a test interpretation proposition in Then can extend a function from -. (if then -. and an outcome space to -. a function from 2 0 to 4 5. We first need we want to view a that associates with each primitive to that associates with each primitive an event (a subset of ) to a function that associates with each program in : else )( 4 6 ) :<; if if 1 - > = 3 Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 9/21

14 A A D D E L K J Where We re Headed We prove the following type of theorem: If a DM has a preference order on programs satisfying appropriate postulates then there exist a state space a probability B C on an outcome space a utility function on a program interpretation F GH a test interpretation I G such that iff W V TY S E QR P M N O X W V T US E QR P M N O. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 10/21

15 Z [ ^ [ Z ^ Z [ This is a Savage-like result The postulates are variants of standard postulates The DM has to put a preference order only on reasonable acts But now and are subjective just like \ ] and! \ ] _ `a and b ` are all in the DM s head and are not part of the description of the problem Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 11/21

16 The Benefits of the Approach We have replaced Savage acts by programs and prove Savage-type theorems. So what have we gained? Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 12/21

17 The Benefits of the Approach We have replaced Savage acts by programs and prove Savage-type theorems. So what have we gained? Acts are easier for a DM to contemplate No need to construct a state space/outcome space Just think about what you can do Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 12/21

18 The Benefits of the Approach We have replaced Savage acts by programs and prove Savage-type theorems. So what have we gained? Acts are easier for a DM to contemplate No need to construct a state space/outcome space Just think about what you can do Different agents can have different conceptions of the world You might make decision on stock trading based on price/earnings ratio I might use astrology (and might not even understand the notion of p/e ratio) Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 12/21

19 Agreeing to disagree results [Aumann] (which assume a common state space) disappear Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 13/21

20 Agreeing to disagree results [Aumann] (which assume a common state space) disappear (Un)awareness becomes particularly important Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 13/21

21 Agreeing to disagree results [Aumann] (which assume a common state space) disappear (Un)awareness becomes particularly important Can deal with unanticipated events novel concepts: Updating conditioning c d Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 13/21

22 Agreeing to disagree results [Aumann] (which assume a common state space) disappear (Un)awareness becomes particularly important Can deal with unanticipated events novel concepts: Updating conditioning e f We do not have to identify two acts that act the same as functions Can capture framing effects: With 600 people can treat 200 people die and 400 people live as different outcomes Can capture resource-bounded reasoning (agent can t tell two acts are equivalent) Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 13/21

23 m q ut s s s s o o o o j k k k r w w w w j j j { v The Cancellation Postulate Back to the Savage framework: and h lj kj k k g h i Cancellation Postulate: Given two sequences p o of acts suppose that for each state m n lj kj k k gn i u k t jk rrn i v u ut n l h lj k t jk r h i r is a multiset u ux x j r w. z h l n l then } ~ j jk k k for nz y h y If Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 14/21

24 ˆ ƒ ˆ ƒ ˆ Œ Š Š ˆ ˆ ƒ ˆ ƒ Cancellation is surprising powerful. It implies Reflexivity Transitivity: and. Take and Suppose. ƒ ˆ ƒ Event independence: Ž Ž and Š Suppose that. Œ on and on is the act that agrees with Ž. Ž Ž ƒ ˆ ƒ and Ž Ž Take Ž Ž Conclusion: Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 15/21

25 š š š š Cancellation in Our Framework A program maps truth assignments to primitive programs: E.g. consider if then else (if then else ): Similarly for every program. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 16/21

26 ž œ ž ž ž œ ž Cancellation in Our Framework A program maps truth assignments to primitive programs: E.g. consider if then œ else (if then œ Ÿ else ): œ œ œ Ÿ Similarly for every program. Can rewrite the cancellation postulate using programs: replace outcomes by primitive programs replace states by truth assignments Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 16/21

27 ² ¹ The Main Result Theorem: Given a preference orders there exist on acts satisfying Cancellation a set of states and a set of probability measures on a set of outcomes and a utility function on a program interpretation ª«a test interpretation ª such that iff ± µ ³ ² ± for all º Moreover if is totally ordered then can be taken to be a singleton. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 17/21

28 » ¼ ½» Uniqueness Savage gets uniqueness; we don t: In the totally ordered case of truth assignments. can be taken to be a subset of the set Not in the partially ordered case: Even with no primitive propositions if primitive programs are incomparable need two states two outcomes and two probability measures to represent this. and Can t hope to have a unique probability measure on totally ordered case: there aren t enough acts. even in the Savage s postulates force uncountably many acts Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 18/21

29 ¾ Program Equivalence When are two programs equivalent? That depends on the choice of semantics With input-output semantics two programs are equivalent if they determine the same functions no matter what À Á Â ÁÃ are. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 19/21

30 Å Ä Ì Ì Ê Ê Í Ë Ë Î Ê Ë Ì Program Equivalence When are two programs equivalent? That depends on the choice of semantics With input-output semantics two programs are equivalent if they determine the same functions no matter what Æ Ç È ÇÉ are. Example 1: (if then else ) (if then else ). These programs determine the same functions no matter how and are interpreted. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 19/21

31 Ð Ï Õ Õ Ø Ö Ö Ù Õ Ö Ú Õ Ø Õ Ú Õ Õ Ø Ö Ö Program Equivalence When are two programs equivalent? That depends on the choice of semantics With input-output semantics two programs are equivalent if they determine the same functions no matter what Ñ Ò Ó ÒÔ are. Example 1: (if then else ) (if then else ). These programs determine the same functions no matter how and are interpreted. Example 2: If then (if then else ) (if then else ). Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 19/21

32 Þ Û Üß Þ Ý Ü Cancellation and Equivalence Testing equivalence of propositional formulas is hard co-np complete even for this simple programming language Have to check propositional equivalence Cancellation implies a DM is indifferent beteween equivalent programs. Lemma: Cancellation if then. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 20/21

33 ã à áä ã â á Cancellation and Equivalence Testing equivalence of propositional formulas is hard co-np complete even for this simple programming language Have to check propositional equivalence Cancellation implies a DM is indifferent beteween equivalent programs. Lemma: Cancellation if then Cancellation requires smart decision makers! We don t have to require cancellation Can consider more resource-bounded DM s. Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 20/21

34 Conclusions The theorems we have proved show only that this approach generalizes the classic Savage approach. The really interesting steps are now to use the approach to deal with issues that the classical approach can t deal with conditioning on unanticipated events (un)awareness See other KR talk; AAMAS paper... Redoing the Foundations of Decision Theory p. 21/21

Constructive Decision Theory

Constructive Decision Theory Joe Halpern Cornell University Joint work with Larry Blume and David Easley Economics Cornell Constructive Decision Theory p. 1/2 Savage s Approach Savage s approach to decision