BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Joseph Y. Halpern

Joseph Y. Halpern contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningComputer Science and Game TheoryDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computingecon.THLogic in Computer ScienceMultiagent SystemsPopulations and EvolutionRobotics

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
11works
0followers
9topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

11 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

A Causal Analysis of Harm

As autonomous systems rapidly become ubiquitous, there is a growing need for a legal and regulatory framework to address when and how such a system harms someone. There have been several attempts within the philosophy literature to define harm, but none of them has proven capable of dealing with with the many examples that have been presented, leading some to suggest that the notion of harm should be abandoned and "replaced by more well-behaved notions". As harm is generally something that is caused, most of these definitions have involved causality at some level. Yet surprisingly, none of them makes use of causal models and the definitions of actual causality that they can express. In this paper we formally define a qualitative notion of harm that uses causal models and is based on a well-known definition of actual causality (Halpern, 2016). The key novelty of our definition is that it is based on contrastive causation and uses a default utility to which the utility of actual outcomes is compared. We show that our definition is able to handle the examples from the literature, and illustrate its importance for reasoning about situations involving autonomous systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

Causal Models with Constraints

Causal models have proven extremely useful in offering formal representations of causal relationships between a set of variables. Yet in many situations, there are non-causal relationships among variables. For example, we may want variables $LDL$, $HDL$, and $TOT$ that represent the level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, the level of lipoprotein high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol level, with the relation $LDL+HDL=TOT$. This cannot be done in standard causal models, because we can intervene simultaneously on all three variables. The goal of this paper is to extend standard causal models to allow for constraints on settings of variables. Although the extension is relatively straightforward, to make it useful we have to define a new intervention operation that $disconnects$ a variable from a causal equation. We give examples showing the usefulness of this extension, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization for causal models with constraints.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The brain as a probabilistic transducer: an evolutionarily plausible network architecture for knowledge representation, computation, and behavior

We offer a general theoretical framework for brain and behavior that is evolutionarily and computationally plausible. The brain in our abstract model is a network of nodes and edges. Although it has some similarities to standard neural network models, as we show, there are some significant differences. Both nodes and edges in our network have weights and activation levels. They act as probabilistic transducers that use a set of relatively simple rules to determine how activation levels and weights are affected by input, generate output, and affect each other. We show that these simple rules enable a learning process that allows the network to represent increasingly complex knowledge, and simultaneously to act as a computing device that facilitates planning, decision-making, and the execution of behavior. By specifying the innate (genetic) components of the network, we show how evolution could endow the network with initial adaptive rules and goals that are then enriched through learning. We demonstrate how the developing structure of the network (which determines what the brain can do and how well) is critically affected by the co-evolved coordination between the mechanisms affecting the distribution of data input and those determining the learning parameters (used in the programs run by nodes and edges). Finally, we consider how the model accounts for various findings in the field of learning and decision making, how it can address some challenging problems in mind and behavior, such as those related to setting goals and self-control, and how it can help understand some cognitive disorders.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bounded Rationality in Las Vegas: Probabilistic Finite Automata PlayMulti-Armed Bandits

While traditional economics assumes that humans are fully rational agents who always maximize their expected utility, in practice, we constantly observe apparently irrational behavior. One explanation is that people have limited computational power, so that they are, quite rationally, making the best decisions they can, given their computational limitations. To test this hypothesis, we consider the multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem. We examine a simple strategy for playing an MAB that can be implemented easily by a probabilistic finite automaton (PFA). Roughly speaking, the PFA sets certain expectations, and plays an arm as long as it meets them. If the PFA has sufficiently many states, it performs near-optimally. Its performance degrades gracefully as the number of states decreases. Moreover, the PFA acts in a "human-like" way, exhibiting a number of standard human biases, like an optimism bias and a negativity bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Causality, Responsibility and Blame in Team Plans

Many objectives can be achieved (or may be achieved more effectively) only by a group of agents executing a team plan. If a team plan fails, it is often of interest to determine what caused the failure, the degree of responsibility of each agent for the failure, and the degree of blame attached to each agent. We show how team plans can be represented in terms of structural equations, and then apply the definitions of causality introduced by Halpern [2015] and degree of responsibility and blame introduced by Chockler and Halpern [2004] to determine the agent(s) who caused the failure and what their degree of responsibility/blame is. We also prove new results on the complexity of computing causality and degree of responsibility and blame, showing that they can be determined in polynomial time for many team plans of interest.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining Experts' Causal Judgments

Consider a policymaker who wants to decide which intervention to perform in order to change a currently undesirable situation. The policymaker has at her disposal a team of experts, each with their own understanding of the causal dependencies between different factors contributing to the outcome. The policymaker has varying degrees of confidence in the experts' opinions. She wants to combine their opinions in order to decide on the most effective intervention. We formally define the notion of an effective intervention, and then consider how experts' causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being \emph{compatible}, and show how compatible causal models can be merged. We then use it as the basis for combining experts' causal judgments. We also provide a definition of decomposition for causal models to cater for cases when models are incompatible. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining the Causal Judgments of Experts with Possibly Different Focus Areas

In many real-world settings, a decision-maker must combine information provided by different experts in order to decide on an effective policy. Alrajeh, Chockler, and Halpern [2018] showed how to combine causal models that are compatible in the sense that, for variables that appear in both models, the experts agree on the causal structure. In this work we show how causal models can be combined in cases where the experts might disagree on the causal structure for variables that appear in both models due to having different focus areas. We provide a new formal definition of compatibility of models in this setting and show how compatible models can be combined. We also consider the complexity of determining whether models are compatible. We believe that the notions defined in this work are of direct relevance to many practical decision making scenarios that come up in natural, social, and medical science settings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Dynamic Awareness

We investigate how to model the beliefs of an agent who becomes more aware. We use the framework of Halpern and Rego (2013) by adding probability, and define a notion of a model transition that describes constraints on how, if an agent becomes aware of a new formula $ϕ$ in state $s$ of a model $M$, she transitions to state $s^*$ in a model $M^*$. We then discuss how such a model can be applied to information disclosure.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Information Acquisition Under Resource Limitations in a Noisy Environment

We introduce a theoretical model of information acquisition under resource limitations in a noisy environment. An agent must guess the truth value of a given Boolean formula $φ$ after performing a bounded number of noisy tests of the truth values of variables in the formula. We observe that, in general, the problem of finding an optimal testing strategy for $ϕ$ is hard, but we suggest a useful heuristic. The techniques we use also give insight into two apparently unrelated, but well-studied problems: (1) \emph{rational inattention}, that is, when it is rational to ignore pertinent information (the optimal strategy may involve hardly ever testing variables that are clearly relevant to $ϕ$), and (2) what makes a formula hard to learn/remember.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

MDPs with Unawareness in Robotics

We formalize decision-making problems in robotics and automated control using continuous MDPs and actions that take place over continuous time intervals. We then approximate the continuous MDP using finer and finer discretizations. Doing this results in a family of systems, each of which has an extremely large action space, although only a few actions are "interesting". We can view the decision maker as being unaware of which actions are "interesting". We can model this using MDPUs, MDPs with unawareness, where the action space is much smaller. As we show, MDPUs can be used as a general framework for learning tasks in robotic problems. We prove results on the difficulty of learning a near-optimal policy in an an MDPU for a continuous task. We apply these ideas to the problem of having a humanoid robot learn on its own how to walk.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Rational Consensus

We provide a game-theoretic analysis of consensus, assuming that processes are controlled by rational agents and may fail by crashing. We consider agents that \emph{care only about consensus}: that is, (a) an agent&#39;s utility depends only on the consensus value achieved (and not, for example, on the number of messages the agent sends) and (b) agents strictly prefer reaching consensus to not reaching consensus. We show that, under these assumptions, there is no \emph{ex post Nash Equilibrium}, even with only one failure. Roughly speaking, this means that there must always exist a \emph{failure pattern} (a description of who fails, when they fail, and which agents they do not send messages to in the round that they fail) and initial preferences for which an agent can gain by deviating. On the other hand, if we assume that there is a distribution $π$ on the failure patterns and initial preferences, then under minimal assumptions on $π$, there is a Nash equilibrium that tolerates $f$ failures (i.e., $π$ puts probability 1 on there being at most $f$ failures) if $f+1 < n$ (where $n$ is the total number of agents). Moreover, we show that a slight extension of the Nash equilibrium strategy is also a \emph{sequential} equilibrium (under the same assumptions about the distribution $π$).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access