Inconsistent Planning: When in Doubt, Toss a Coin!

1Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

One of the most widespread human behavioral biases is the present bias-the tendency to overestimate current costs by a bias factor. Kleinberg and Oren (2014) introduced an elegant graph-theoretical model of inconsistent planning capturing the behavior of a present-biased agent accomplishing a set of actions. The essential measure of the system introduced by Kleinberg and Oren is the cost of irrationality-the ratio of the total cost of the actions performed by the present-biased agent to the optimal cost. This measure is vital for a task designer to estimate the aftermaths of human behavior related to time-inconsistent planning, including procrastination and abandonment. As we prove in this paper, the cost of irrationality is highly susceptible to the agent's choices when faced with a few possible actions of equal estimated costs. To address this issue, we propose a modification of Kleinberg-Oren's model of inconsistent planning. In our model, when an agent selects from several options of minimum prescribed cost, he uses a randomized procedure. We explore the algorithmic complexity of computing and estimating the cost of irrationality in the new model.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dementiev, Y., Fomin, F., & Ignatiev, A. (2022). Inconsistent Planning: When in Doubt, Toss a Coin! In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022 (Vol. 36, pp. 9724–9731). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i9.21207

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free