BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Joseph Y. Halpern

Joseph Y. Halpern appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceComputer Science and Game TheoryLogic in Computer ScienceDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingMachine LearningMultiagent SystemsPopulations and EvolutionCryptography and SecurityDatabasesDigital Librariesecon.THphysics.soc-phq-fin.TRRobotics

Catalog footprint

What is connected

71works
14topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

71 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'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
preprint2016arXiv

Bayesian Games with Intentions

We show that standard Bayesian games cannot represent the full spectrum of belief-dependent preferences. However, by introducing a fundamental distinction between intended and actual strategies, we remove this limitation. We define Bayesian games with intentions, generalizing both Bayesian games and psychological games, and prove that Nash equilibria in psychological games correspond to a special class of equilibria as defined in our setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Decentralised Norm Monitoring in Open Multi-Agent Systems

We consider the problem of detecting norm violations in open multi-agent systems (MAS). We show how, using ideas from scrip systems, we can design mechanisms where the agents comprising the MAS are incentivised to monitor the actions of other agents for norm violations. The cost of providing the incentives is not borne by the MAS and does not come from fines charged for norm violations (fines may be impossible to levy in a system where agents are free to leave and rejoin again under a different identity). Instead, monitoring incentives come from (scrip) fees for accessing the services provided by the MAS. In some cases, perfect monitoring (and hence enforcement) can be achieved: no norms will be violated in equilibrium. In other cases, we show that, while it is impossible to achieve perfect enforcement, we can get arbitrarily close; we can make the probability of a norm violation in equilibrium arbitrarily small. We show using simulations that our theoretical results hold for multi-agent systems with as few as 1000 agents---the system rapidly converges to the steady-state distribution of scrip tokens necessary to ensure monitoring and then remains close to the steady state.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Translucent Players: Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Social Dilemmas

In the last few decades, numerous experiments have shown that humans do not always behave so as to maximize their material payoff. Cooperative behavior when non-cooperation is a dominant strategy (with respect to the material payoffs) is particularly puzzling. Here we propose a novel approach to explain cooperation, assuming what Halpern and Pass call translucent players. Typically, players are assumed to be opaque, in the sense that a deviation by one player in a normal-form game does not affect the strategies used by other players. But a player may believe that if he switches from one strategy to another, the fact that he chooses to switch may be visible to the other players. For example, if he chooses to defect in Prisoner's Dilemma, the other player may sense his guilt. We show that by assuming translucent players, we can recover many of the regularities observed in human behavior in well-studied games such as Prisoner's Dilemma, Traveler's Dilemma, Bertrand Competition, and the Public Goods game.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

A Modification of the Halpern-Pearl Definition of Causality

The original Halpern-Pearl definition of causality [Halpern and Pearl, 2001] was updated in the journal version of the paper [Halpern and Pearl, 2005] to deal with some problems pointed out by Hopkins and Pearl [2003]. Here the definition is modified yet again, in a way that (a) leads to a simpler definition, (b) handles the problems pointed out by Hopkins and Pearl, and many others, (c) gives reasonable answers (that agree with those of the original and updated definition) in the standard problematic examples of causality, and (d) has lower complexity than either the original or updated definitions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

A Symbolic Logic with Concrete Bounds for Cryptographic Protocols

We present a formal logic for quantitative reasoning about security properties of network protocols. The system allows us to derive concrete security bounds that can be used to choose key lengths and other security parameters. We provide axioms for reasoning about digital signatures and random nonces, with security properties based on the concrete security of signature schemes and pseudorandom number generators (PRG). The formal logic supports first-order reasoning and reasoning about protocol invariants, taking concrete security bounds into account. Proofs constructed in our logic also provide conventional asymptotic security guarantees because of the way that concrete bounds accumulate in proofs. As an illustrative example, we use the formal logic to prove an authentication property with concrete bounds of a signature-based challenge-response protocol.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Computational Extensive-Form Games

We define solution concepts appropriate for computationally bounded players playing a fixed finite game. To do so, we need to define what it means for a \emph{computational game}, which is a sequence of games that get larger in some appropriate sense, to represent a single finite underlying extensive-form game. Roughly speaking, we require all the games in the sequence to have essentially the same structure as the underlying game, except that two histories that are indistinguishable (i.e., in the same information set) in the underlying game may correspond to histories that are only computationally indistinguishable in the computational game. We define a computational version of both Nash equilibrium and sequential equilibrium for computational games, and show that every Nash (resp., sequential) equilibrium in the underlying game corresponds to a computational Nash (resp., sequential) equilibrium in the computational game. One advantage of our approach is that if a cryptographic protocol represents an abstract game, then we can analyze its strategic behavior in the abstract game, and thus separate the cryptographic analysis of the protocol from the strategic analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Minimizing Regret in Dynamic Decision Problems

The menu-dependent nature of regret-minimization creates subtleties when it is applied to dynamic decision problems. Firstly, it is not clear whether \emph{forgone opportunities} should be included in the \emph{menu}, with respect to which regrets are computed, at different points of the decision problem. If forgone opportunities are included, however, we can characterize when a form of dynamic consistency is guaranteed. Secondly, more subtleties arise when sophistication is used to deal with dynamic inconsistency. In the full version of this paper, we examine, axiomatically and by common examples, the implications of different menu definitions for sophisticated, regret-minimizing agents.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

On the Non-Existence of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Resource-Bounded Players

We consider sequences of games $\mathcal{G}=\{G_1,G_2,\ldots\}$ where, for all $n$, $G_n$ has the same set of players. Such sequences arise in the analysis of running time of players in games, in electronic money systems such as Bitcoin and in cryptographic protocols. Assuming that one-way functions exist, we prove that there is a sequence of 2-player zero-sum Bayesian games $\mathcal{G}$ such that, for all $n$, the size of every action in $G_n$ is polynomial in $n$, the utility function is polynomial computable in $n$, and yet there is no polynomial-time Nash equilibrium, where we use a notion of Nash equilibrium that is tailored to sequences of games. We also demonstrate that Nash equilibrium may not exist when considering players that are constrained to perform at most $T$ computational steps in each of the games $\{G_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$. These examples may shed light on competitive settings where the availability of more running time or faster algorithms lead to a "computational arms race", precluding the existence of equilibrium. They also point to inherent limitations of concepts such "best response" and Nash equilibrium in games with resource-bounded players.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Truth Behind the Myth of the Folk Theorem

We study the problem of computing an $ε$-Nash equilibrium in repeated games. Earlier work by Borgs et al. [2010] suggests that this problem is intractable. We show that if we make a slight change to their model---modeling the players as polynomial-time Turing machines that maintain state ---and make some standard cryptographic hardness assumptions (the existence of public-key encryption), the problem can actually be solved in polynomial time. Our algorithm works not only for games with a finite number of players, but also for constant-degree graphical games. As Nash equilibrium is a weak solution concept for extensive form games, we additionally define and study an appropriate notion of a subgame-perfect equilibrium for computationally bounded players, and show how to efficiently find such an equilibrium in repeated games (again, making standard cryptographic hardness assumptions).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Updating Sets of Probabilities

We consider how an agent should update her uncertainty when it is represented by a set P of probability distributions and the agent observes that a random variable X takes on value x, given that the agent makes decisions using the minimax criterion, perhaps the best-studied and most commonly-used criterion in the literature. We adopt a game-theoretic framework, where the agent plays against a bookie, who chooses some distribution from P. We consider two reasonable games that differ in what the bookie knows when he makes his choice. Anomalies that have been observed before, like time inconsistency, can be understood as arising because different games are being played, against bookies with different information. We characterize the important special cases in which the optimal decision rules according to the minimax criterion amount to either conditioning or simply ignoring the information. Finally, we consider the relationship between conditioning and calibration when uncertainty is described by sets of probabilities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A logic for reasoning about ambiguity

Standard models of multi-agent modal logic do not capture the fact that information is often \emph{ambiguous}, and may be interpreted in different ways by different agents. We propose a framework that can model this, and consider different semantics that capture different assumptions about the agents' beliefs regarding whether or not there is ambiguity. We examine the expressive power of logics of ambiguity compared to logics that cannot model ambiguity, with respect to the different semantics that we propose.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Logic for Reasoning about Evidence

We introduce a logic for reasoning about evidence, that essentially views evidence as a function from prior beliefs (before making an observation) to posterior beliefs (after making the observation). We provide a sound and complete axiomatization for the logic, and consider the complexity of the decision problem. Although the reasoning in the logic is mainly propositional, we allow variables representing numbers and quantification over them. This expressive power seems necessary to capture important properties of evidence

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Algorithmic Rationality: Game Theory with Costly Computation

We develop a general game-theoretic framework for reasoning about strategic agents performing possibly costly computation. In this framework, many traditional game-theoretic results (such as the existence of a Nash equilibrium) no longer hold. Nevertheless, we can use the framework to provide psychologically appealing explanations of observed behavior in well-studied games (such as finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma and rock-paper-scissors). Furthermore, we provide natural conditions on games sufficient to guarantee that equilibria exist.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

An Equilibrium Analysis of Scrip Systems

A game-theoretic model of scrip (artificial currency) systems is analyzed. It is shown that relative entropy can be used to characterize the distribution of agent wealth when all agents use threshold strategies---that is, they volunteer to do work iff they have below a threshold amount of money. Monotonicity of agents' best-reply functions is used to show that scrip systems have pure strategy equilibria where all agents use threshold strategies. An algorithm is given that can compute such an equilibrium and the resulting distribution of wealth.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Axiomatizing Causal Reasoning

Causal models defined in terms of a collection of equations, as defined by Pearl, are axiomatized here. Axiomatizations are provided for three successively more general classes of causal models: (1) the class of recursive theories (those without feedback), (2) the class of theories where the solutions to the equations are unique, (3) arbitrary theories (where the equations may not have solutions and, if they do, they are not necessarily unique). It is shown that to reason about causality in the most general third class, we must extend the language used by Galles and Pearl. In addition, the complexity of the decision procedures is examined for all the languages and classes of models considered.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Cause, Responsibility, and Blame: oA Structural-Model Approach

A definition of causality introduced by Halpern and Pearl, which uses structural equations, is reviewed. A more refined definition is then considered, which takes into account issues of normality and typicality, which are well known to affect causal ascriptions. Causality is typically an all-or-nothing notion: either A is a cause of B or it is not. An extension of the definition of causality to capture notions of degree of responsibility and degree of blame, due to Chockler and Halpern, is reviewed. For example, if someone wins an election 11-0, then each person who votes for him is less responsible for the victory than if he had won 6-5. Degree of blame takes into account an agent's epistemic state. Roughly speaking, the degree of blame of A for B is the expected degree of responsibility of A for B, taken over the epistemic state of an agent. Finally, the structural-equations definition of causality is compared to Wright's NESS test.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Conditional Plausibility Measures and Bayesian Networks

A general notion of algebraic conditional plausibility measures is defined. Probability measures, ranking functions, possibility measures, and (under the appropriate definitions) sets of probability measures can all be viewed as defining algebraic conditional plausibility measures. It is shown that the technology of Bayesian networks can be applied to algebraic conditional plausibility measures.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Cooperative Equilibrium: A solution predicting cooperative play

Nash equilibrium (NE) assumes that players always make a best response. However, this is not always true; sometimes people cooperate even it is not a best response to do so. For example, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, people often cooperate. Are there rules underlying cooperative behavior? In an effort to answer this question, we propose a new equilibrium concept: perfect cooperative equilibrium (PCE), and two related variants: max-PCE and cooperative equilibrium. PCE may help explain players' behavior in games where cooperation is observed in practice. A player's payoff in a PCE is at least as high as in any NE. However, a PCE does not always exist. We thus consider α-PCE, where α takes into account the degree of cooperation; a PCE is a 0-PCE. Every game has a Pareto-optimal max-PCE (M-PCE); that is, an α-PCE for a maximum α. We show that M-PCE does well at predicting behavior in quite a few games of interest. We also consider cooperative equilibrium (CE), another generalization of PCE that takes punishment into account. Interestingly, all Pareto-optimal M-PCE are CE. We prove that, in 2-player games, a PCE (if it exists), a M-PCE, and a CE can all be found in polynomial time using bilinear programming. This is a contrast to Nash equilibrium, which is PPAD complete even in 2-player games [Chen, Deng, and Teng 2009]. We compare M-PCE to the coco value [Kalai and Kalai 2009], another solution concept that tries to capture cooperation, both axiomatically and in terms of an algebraic characterization, and show that the two are closely related, despite their very different definitions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Defining Relative Likelihood in Partially-Ordered Preferential Structures

Starting with a likelihood or preference order on worlds, we extend it to a likelihood ordering on sets of worlds in a natural way, and examine the resulting logic. Lewis (1973) earlier considered such a notion of relative likelihood in the context of studying counterfactuals, but he assumed a total preference order on worlds. Complications arise when examining partial orders that are not present for total orders. There are subtleties involving the exact approach to lifting the order on worlds to an order on sets of worlds. In addition, the axiomatization of the logic of relative likelihood in the case of partial orders gives insight into the connection between relative likelihood and default reasoning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Evidence with Uncertain Likelihoods

An agent often has a number of hypotheses, and must choose among them based on observations, or outcomes of experiments. Each of these observations can be viewed as providing evidence for or against various hypotheses. All the attempts to formalize this intuition up to now have assumed that associated with each hypothesis h there is a likelihood function μh, which is a probability measure that intuitively describes how likely each observation is, conditional on h being the correct hypothesis. We consider an extension of this framework where there is uncertainty as to which of a number of likelihood functions is appropriate, and discuss how one formal approach to defining evidence, which views evidence as a function from priors to posteriors, can be generalized to accommodate this uncertainty.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

MDPs with Unawareness

Markov decision processes (MDPs) are widely used for modeling decision-making problems in robotics, automated control, and economics. Traditional MDPs assume that the decision maker (DM) knows all states and actions. However, this may not be true in many situations of interest. We define a new framework, MDPs with unawareness (MDPUs) to deal with the possibilities that a DM may not be aware of all possible actions. We provide a complete characterization of when a DM can learn to play near-optimally in an MDPU, and give an algorithm that learns to play near-optimally when it is possible to do so, as efficiently as possible. In particular, we characterize when a near-optimal solution can be found in polynomial time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Reasoning about Expectation

Expectation is a central notion in probability theory. The notion of expectation also makes sense for other notions of uncertainty. We introduce a propositional logic for reasoning about expectation, where the semantics depends on the underlying representation of uncertainty. We give sound and complete axiomatizations for the logic in the case that the underlying representation is (a) probability, (b) sets of probability measures, (c) belief functions, and (d) possibility measures. We show that this logic is more expressive than the corresponding logic for reasoning about likelihood in the case of sets of probability measures, but equi-expressive in the case of probability, belief, and possibility. Finally, we show that satisfiability for these logics is NP-complete, no harder than satisfiability for propositional logic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Sequential Equilibrium in Computational Games

We examine sequential equilibrium in the context of computational games, where agents are charged for computation. In such games, an agent can rationally choose to forget, so issues of imperfect recall arise. In this setting, we consider two notions of sequential equilibrium. One is an ex ante notion, where a player chooses his strategy before the game starts and is committed to it, but chooses it in such a way that it remains optimal even off the equilibrium path. The second is an interim notion, where a player can reconsider at each information set whether he is doing the "right" thing, and if not, can change his strategy. The two notions agree in games of perfect recall, but not in games of imperfect recall. Although the interim notion seems more appealing, \fullv{Halpern and Pass [2011] argue that there are some deep conceptual problems with it in standard games of imperfect recall. We show that the conceptual problems largely disappear in the computational setting. Moreover, in this setting, under natural assumptions, the two notions coincide.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

The Computational Complexity of Structure-Based Causality

Halpern and Pearl introduced a definition of actual causality; Eiter and Lukasiewicz showed that computing whether X=x is a cause of Y=y is NP-complete in binary models (where all variables can take on only two values) and\ Sigma_2^P-complete in general models. In the final version of their paper, Halpern and Pearl slightly modified the definition of actual cause, in order to deal with problems pointed by Hopkins and Pearl. As we show, this modification has a nontrivial impact on the complexity of computing actual cause. To characterize the complexity, a new family D_k^P, k= 1, 2, 3, ..., of complexity classes is introduced, which generalizes the class DP introduced by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis (DP is just D_1^P). %joe2 %We show that the complexity of computing causality is $\D_2$-complete %under the new definition. Chockler and Halpern \citeyear{CH04} extended the We show that the complexity of computing causality under the updated definition is $D_2^P$-complete. Chockler and Halpern extended the definition of causality by introducing notions of responsibility and blame. The complexity of determining the degree of responsibility and blame using the original definition of causality was completely characterized. Again, we show that changing the definition of causality affects the complexity, and completely characterize it using the updated definition.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Translucent Players: Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Social Dilemmas

In the last few decades, numerous experiments have shown that humans do not always behave so as to maximize their material payoff. Cooperative behavior when non-cooperation is a dominant strategy (with respect to the material payoffs) is particularly puzzling. Here we propose a novel approach to explain cooperation, assuming what Halpern and Pass (2013) call "translucent players". Typically, players are assumed to be "opaque", in the sense that a deviation by one player does not affect the strategies used by other players. But a player may believe that if he switches from one strategy to another, the fact that he chooses to switch may be visible to the other players. For example, if he chooses to defect in Prisoner's Dilemma, the other player may sense his guilt. We show that by assuming translucent players, we can recover many of the regularities observed in human behavior in well-studied games such as Prisoner's Dilemma, Traveler's Dilemma, Bertrand Competition, and the Public Goods game.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Updating Probabilities

As examples such as the Monty Hall puzzle show, applying conditioning to update a probability distribution on a ``naive space', which does not take into account the protocol used, can often lead to counterintuitive results. Here we examine why. A criterion known as CAR (coarsening at random) in the statistical literature characterizes when ``naive' conditioning in a naive space works. We show that the CAR condition holds rather infrequently. We then consider more generalized notions of update such as Jeffrey conditioning and minimizing relative entropy (MRE). We give a generalization of the CAR condition that characterizes when Jeffrey conditioning leads to appropriate answers, but show that there are no such conditions for MRE. This generalizes and interconnects previous results obtained in the literature on CAR and MRE.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Updating Sets of Probabilities

There are several well-known justifications for conditioning as the appropriate method for updating a single probability measure, given an observation. However, there is a significant body of work arguing for sets of probability measures, rather than single measures, as a more realistic model of uncertainty. Conditioning still makes sense in this context--we can simply condition each measure in the set individually, then combine the results--and, indeed, it seems to be the preferred updating procedure in the literature. But how justified is conditioning in this richer setting? Here we show, by considering an axiomatic account of conditioning given by van Fraassen, that the single-measure and sets-of-measures cases are very different. We show that van Fraassen's axiomatization for the former case is nowhere near sufficient for updating sets of measures. We give a considerably longer (and not as compelling) list of axioms that together force conditioning in this setting, and describe other update methods that are allowed once any of these axioms is dropped.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

When Ignorance is Bliss

It is commonly-accepted wisdom that more information is better, and that information should never be ignored. Here we argue, using both a Bayesian and a non-Bayesian analysis, that in some situations you are better off ignoring information if your uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures. These include situations in which the information is relevant for the prediction task at hand. In the non-Bayesian analysis, we show how ignoring information avoids dilation, the phenomenon that additional pieces of information sometimes lead to an increase in uncertainty. In the Bayesian analysis, we show that for small sample sizes and certain prediction tasks, the Bayesian posterior based on a noninformative prior yields worse predictions than simply ignoring the given information.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

A Qualitative Markov Assumption and its Implications for Belief Change

The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In recent years two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief update, have been studied in detail. Roughly, revision treats a surprising observation as a sign that previous beliefs were wrong, while update treats a surprising observation as an indication that the world has changed. In general, we would expect that an agent making an observation may both want to revise some earlier beliefs and assume that some change has occurred in the world. We define a novel approach to belief change that allows us to do this, by applying ideas from probability theory in a qualitative setting. The key idea is to use a qualitative Markov assumption, which says that state transitions are independent. We show that a recent approach to modeling qualitative uncertainty using plausibility measures allows us to make such a qualitative Markov assumption in a relatively straightforward way, and show how the Markov assumption can be used to provide an attractive belief-change model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach --- Part 1: Causes

We propose a new definition of actual causes, using structural equations to model counterfactuals.We show that the definitions yield a plausible and elegant account ofcausation that handles well examples which have caused problems forother definitions and resolves major difficulties in the traditionalaccount. In a companion paper, we show how the definition of causality can beused to give an elegant definition of (causal) explanation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Compact Representations of Extended Causal Models

Judea Pearl was the first to propose a definition of actual causation using causal models. A number of authors have suggested that an adequate account of actual causation must appeal not only to causal structure, but also to considerations of normality. In earlier work, we provided a definition of actual causation using extended causal models, which include information about both causal structure and normality. Extended causal models are potentially very complex. In this paper, we show how it is possible to achieve a compact representation of extended causal models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Decision Theory with Resource-Bounded Agents

There have been two major lines of research aimed at capturing resource-bounded players in game theory. The first, initiated by Rubinstein, charges an agent for doing costly computation; the second, initiated by Neyman, does not charge for computation, but limits the computation that agents can do, typically by modeling agents as finite automata. We review recent work on applying both approaches in the context of decision theory. For the first approach, we take the objects of choice in a decision problem to be Turing machines, and charge players for the ``complexity'' of the Turing machine chosen (e.g., its running time). This approach can be used to explain well-known phenomena like first-impression-matters biases (i.e., people tend to put more weight on evidence they hear early on) and belief polarization (two people with different prior beliefs, hearing the same evidence, can end up with diametrically opposed conclusions) as the outcomes of quite rational decisions. For the second approach, we model people as finite automata, and provide a simple algorithm that, on a problem that captures a number of settings of interest, provably performs optimally as the number of states in the automaton increases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Defining Explanation in Probabilistic Systems

As probabilistic systems gain popularity and are coming into wider use, the need for a mechanism that explains the system's findings and recommendations becomes more critical. The system will also need a mechanism for ordering competing explanations. We examine two representative approaches to explanation in the literature - one due to Gärdenfors and one due to Pearl - and show that both suffer from significant problems. We propose an approach to defining a notion of "better explanation" that combines some of the features of both together with more recent work by Pearl and others on causality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

From Causal Models To Counterfactual Structures

Galles and Pearl claimed that "for recursive models, the causal model framework does not add any restrictions to counterfactuals, beyond those imposed by Lewis's [possible-worlds] framework." This claim is examined carefully, with the goal of clarifying the exact relationship between causal models and Lewis's framework. Recursive models are shown to correspond precisely to a subclass of (possible-world) counterfactual structures. On the other hand, a slight generalization of recursive models, models where all equations have unique solutions, is shown to be incomparable in expressive power to counterfactual structures, despite the fact that the Galles and Pearl arguments should apply to them as well. The problem with the Galles and Pearl argument is identified: an axiom that they viewed as irrelevant, because it involved disjunction (which was not in their language), is not irrelevant at all.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Game Theory with Translucent Players

A traditional assumption in game theory is that players are opaque to one another---if a player changes strategies, then this change in strategies does not affect the choice of other players' strategies. In many situations this is an unrealistic assumption. We develop a framework for reasoning about games where the players may be translucent to one another; in particular, a player may believe that if she were to change strategies, then the other player would also change strategies. Translucent players may achieve significantly more efficient outcomes than opaque ones. Our main result is a characterization of strategies consistent with appropriate analogues of common belief of rationality. Common Counterfactual Belief of Rationality (CCBR) holds if (1) everyone is rational, (2) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational (i.e., all players i believe that everyone else would still be rational even if $i$ were to switch strategies), (3) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and so on. CCBR characterizes the set of strategies surviving iterated removal of minimax dominated strategies, where a strategy s for player i is minimax dominated by s' if the worst-case payoff for i using s' is better than the best possible payoff using s.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Game Theory with Translucent Players

A traditional assumption in game theory is that players are opaque to one another -- if a player changes strategies, then this change in strategies does not affect the choice of other players' strategies. In many situations this is an unrealistic assumption. We develop a framework for reasoning about games where the players may be translucent to one another; in particular, a player may believe that if she were to change strategies, then the other player would also change strategies. Translucent players may achieve significantly more efficient outcomes than opaque ones. Our main result is a characterization of strategies consistent with appropriate analogues of common belief of rationality. Common Counterfactual Belief of Rationality (CCBR) holds if (1) everyone is rational, (2) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational (i.e., all players i believe that everyone else would still be rational even if i were to switch strategies), (3) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and so on. CCBR characterizes the set of strategies surviving iterated removal of minimax dominated strategies: a strategy $σ_i$ is minimax dominated for i if there exists a strategy $σ'_i$ for i such that $\min_{μ'_{-i}} u_i(σ_i, μ_{-i}') > \max_{μ_{-i}} u_i(σ_i, μ_{-i})$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Generating New Beliefs From Old

In previous work [BGHK92, BGHK93], we have studied the random-worlds approach -- a particular (and quite powerful) method for generating degrees of belief (i.e., subjective probabilities) from a knowledge base consisting of objective (first-order, statistical, and default) information. But allowing a knowledge base to contain only objective information is sometimes limiting. We occasionally wish to include information about degrees of belief in the knowledge base as well, because there are contexts in which old beliefs represent important information that should influence new beliefs. In this paper, we describe three quite general techniques for extending a method that generates degrees of belief from objective information to one that can make use of degrees of belief as well. All of our techniques are bloused on well-known approaches, such as cross-entropy. We discuss general connections between the techniques and in particular show that, although conceptually and technically quite different, all of the techniques give the same answer when applied to the random-worlds method.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Graded Causation and Defaults

Recent work in psychology and experimental philosophy has shown that judgments of actual causation are often influenced by consideration of defaults, typicality, and normality. A number of philosophers and computer scientists have also suggested that an appeal to such factors can help deal with problems facing existing accounts of actual causation. This paper develops a flexible formal framework for incorporating defaults, typicality, and normality into an account of actual causation. The resulting account takes actual causation to be both graded and comparative. We then show how our account would handle a number of standard cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Language-based Games

We introduce language-based games, a generalization of psychological games [6] that can also capture reference-dependent preferences [7]. The idea is to extend the domain of the utility function to situations, maximal consistent sets in some language. The role of the underlying language in this framework is thus particularly critical. Of special interest are languages that can express only coarse beliefs [9]. Despite the expressive power of the approach, we show that it can describe games in a simple, natural way. Nash equilibrium and rationalizability are generalized to this setting; Nash equilibrium is shown not to exist in general, while the existence of rationalizable strategies is proved under mild conditions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Plausibility Measures: A User's Guide

We examine a new approach to modeling uncertainty based on plausibility measures, where a plausibility measure just associates with an event its plausibility, an element is some partially ordered set. This approach is easily seen to generalize other approaches to modeling uncertainty, such as probability measures, belief functions, and possibility measures. The lack of structure in a plausibility measure makes it easy for us to add structure on an "as needed" basis, letting us examine what is required to ensure that a plausibility measure has certain properties of interest. This gives us insight into the essential features of the properties in question, while allowing us to prove general results that apply to many approaches to reasoning about uncertainty. Plausibility measures have already proved useful in analyzing default reasoning. In this paper, we examine their "algebraic properties," analogues to the use of + and * in probability theory. An understanding of such properties will be essential if plausibility measures are to be used in practice as a representation tool.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Probability Update: Conditioning vs. Cross-Entropy

Conditioning is the generally agreed-upon method for updating probability distributions when one learns that an event is certainly true. But it has been argued that we need other rules, in particular the rule of cross-entropy minimization, to handle updates that involve uncertain information. In this paper we re-examine such a case: van Fraassen's Judy Benjamin problem, which in essence asks how one might update given the value of a conditional probability. We argue that -- contrary to the suggestions in the literature -- it is possible to use simple conditionalization in this case, and thereby obtain answers that agree fully with intuition. This contrasts with proposals such as cross-entropy, which are easier to apply but can give unsatisfactory answers. Based on the lessons from this example, we speculate on some general philosophical issues concerning probability update.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

The Relationship between Knowledge, Belief and Certainty

We consider the relation between knowledge and certainty, where a fact is known if it is true at all worlds an agent considers possible and is certain if it holds with probability 1. We identify certainty with probabilistic belief. We show that if we assume one fixed probability assignment, then the logic KD45, which has been identified as perhaps the most appropriate for belief, provides a complete axiomatization for reasoning about certainty. Just as an agent may believe a fact although phi is false, he may be certain that a fact phi, is true although phi is false. However, it is easy to see that an agent can have such false (probabilistic) beliefs only at a set of worlds of probability 0. If we restrict attention to structures where all worlds have positive probability, then S5 provides a complete axiomatization. If we consider a more general setting, where there might be a different probability assignment at each world, then by placing appropriate conditions on the support of the probability function (the set of worlds which have non-zero probability), we can capture many other well-known modal logics, such as T and S4. Finally, we consider which axioms characterize structures satisfying Miller's principle.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Weighted regret-based likelihood: a new approach to describing uncertainty

Recently, Halpern and Leung suggested representing uncertainty by a weighted set of probability measures, and suggested a way of making decisions based on this representation of uncertainty: maximizing weighted regret. Their paper does not answer an apparently simpler question: what it means, according to this representation of uncertainty, for an event E to be more likely than an event E'. In this paper, a notion of comparative likelihood when uncertainty is represented by a weighted set of probability measures is defined. It generalizes the ordering defined by probability (and by lower probability) in a natural way; a generalization of upper probability can also be defined. A complete axiomatic characterization of this notion of regret-based likelihood is given.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Weighted Sets of Probabilities and Minimax Weighted Expected Regret: New Approaches for Representing Uncertainty and Making Decisions

We consider a setting where an agent's uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures, rather than a single measure. Measure-by-measure updating of such a set of measures upon acquiring new information is well-known to suffer from problems; agents are not always able to learn appropriately. To deal with these problems, we propose using weighted sets of probabilities: a representation where each measure is associated with a weight, which denotes its significance. We describe a natural approach to updating in such a situation and a natural approach to determining the weights. We then show how this representation can be used in decision-making, by modifying a standard approach to decision making -- minimizing expected regret -- to obtain minimax weighted expected regret (MWER). We provide an axiomatization that characterizes preferences induced by MWER both in the static and dynamic case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Ambiguous Language and Differences in Beliefs

Standard models of multi-agent modal logic do not capture the fact that information is often ambiguous, and may be interpreted in different ways by different agents. We propose a framework that can model this, and consider different semantics that capture different assumptions about the agents' beliefs regarding whether or not there is ambiguity. We consider the impact of ambiguity on a seminal result in economics: Aumann's result saying that agents with a common prior cannot agree to disagree. This result is known not to hold if agents do not have a common prior; we show that it also does not hold in the presence of ambiguity. We then consider the tradeoff between assuming a common interpretation (i.e., no ambiguity) and a common prior (i.e., shared initial beliefs).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Optimizing Scrip Systems: Crashes, Altruists, Hoarders, Sybils and Collusion

Scrip, or artificial currency, is a useful tool for designing systems that are robust to selfish behavior by users. However, it also introduces problems for a system designer, such as how the amount of money in the system should be set. In this paper, the effect of varying the total amount of money in a scrip system on efficiency (i.e., social welfare---the total utility of all the agents in the system) is analyzed, and it is shown that by maintaining the appropriate ratio between the total amount of money and the number of agents, efficiency is maximized. This ratio can be found by increasing the money supply to just below the point that the system would experience a "monetary crash," where money is sufficiently devalued that no agent is willing to perform a service. The implications of the presence of altruists, hoarders, sybils, and collusion on the performance of the system are examined. Approaches are discussed to identify the strategies and types of agents.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Viewpoint: Journals for Certification, Conferences for Rapid Dissemination

The publication culture in Computer Science is different from that of all other disciplines. Whereas other disciplines focus on journal publication, the standard practice in CS has been to publish in a conference and then (sometimes) publish a journal version of the conference paper. We discuss the role of journal publication in CS. Indeed, it is through publication in selective, leading conferences that the quality of CS research is typically assessed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Weighted Sets of Probabilities and MinimaxWeighted Expected Regret: New Approaches for Representing Uncertainty and Making Decisions

We consider a setting where an agent's uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures, rather than a single measure. Measure-bymeasure updating of such a set of measures upon acquiring new information is well-known to suffer from problems; agents are not always able to learn appropriately. To deal with these problems, we propose using weighted sets of probabilities: a representation where each measure is associated with a weight, which denotes its significance. We describe a natural approach to updating in such a situation and a natural approach to determining the weights. We then show how this representation can be used in decision-making, by modifying a standard approach to decision making-minimizing expected regret-to obtain minimax weighted expected regret (MWER).We provide an axiomatization that characterizes preferences induced by MWER both in the static and dynamic case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Actual causation and the art of modeling

We look more carefully at the modeling of causality using structural equations. It is clear that the structural equations can have a major impact on the conclusions we draw about causality. In particular, the choice of variables and their values can also have a significant impact on causality. These choices are, to some extent, subjective. We consider what counts as an appropriate choice. More generally, we consider what makes a model an appropriate model, especially if we want to take defaults into account, as was argued is necessary in recent work.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Conditional Plausibility Measures and Bayesian Networks

A general notion of algebraic conditional plausibility measures is defined. Probability measures, ranking functions, possibility measures, and (under the appropriate definitions) sets of probability measures can all be viewed as defining algebraic conditional plausibility measures. It is shown that algebraic conditional plausibility measures can be represented using Bayesian networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

I Don't Want to Think About it Now:Decision Theory With Costly Computation

Computation plays a major role in decision making. Even if an agent is willing to ascribe a probability to all states and a utility to all outcomes, and maximize expected utility, doing so might present serious computational problems. Moreover, computing the outcome of a given act might be difficult. In a companion paper we develop a framework for game theory with costly computation, where the objects of choice are Turing machines. Here we apply that framework to decision theory. We show how well-known phenomena like first-impression-matters biases (i.e., people tend to put more weight on evidence they hear early on), belief polarization (two people with different prior beliefs, hearing the same evidence, can end up with diametrically opposed conclusions), and the status quo bias (people are much more likely to stick with what they already have) can be easily captured in that framework. Finally, we use the framework to define some new notions: value of computational information (a computational variant of value of information) and and computational value of conversation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

No justified complaints: On fair sharing of multiple resources

Fair allocation has been studied intensively in both economics and computer science, and fair sharing of resources has aroused renewed interest with the advent of virtualization and cloud computing. Prior work has typically focused on mechanisms for fair sharing of a single resource. We provide a new definition for the simultaneous fair allocation of multiple continuously-divisible resources. Roughly speaking, we define fairness as the situation where every user either gets all the resources he wishes for, or else gets at least his entitlement on some bottleneck resource, and therefore cannot complain about not getting more. This definition has the same desirable properties as the recently suggested dominant resource fairness, and also handles the case of multiple bottlenecks. We then prove that a fair allocation according to this definition is guaranteed to exist for any combination of user requests and entitlements (where a user's relative use of the different resources is fixed). The proof, which uses tools from the theory of ordinary differential equations, is constructive and provides a method to compute the allocations numerically.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

MDPs with Unawareness

Markov decision processes (MDPs) are widely used for modeling decision-making problems in robotics, automated control, and economics. Traditional MDPs assume that the decision maker (DM) knows all states and actions. However, this may not be true in many situations of interest. We define a new framework, MDPs with unawareness (MDPUs) to deal with the possibilities that a DM may not be aware of all possible actions. We provide a complete characterization of when a DM can learn to play near-optimally in an MDPU, and give an algorithm that learns to play near-optimally when it is possible to do so, as efficiently as possible. In particular, we characterize when a near-optimal solution can be found in polynomial time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

Manipulating Scrip Systems: Sybils and Collusion

Game-theoretic analyses of distributed and peer-to-peer systems typically use the Nash equilibrium solution concept, but this explicitly excludes the possibility of strategic behavior involving more than one agent. We examine the effects of two types of strategic behavior involving more than one agent, sybils and collusion, in the context of scrip systems where agents provide each other with service in exchange for scrip. Sybils make an agent more likely to be chosen to provide service, which generally makes it harder for agents without sybils to earn money and decreases social welfare. Surprisingly, in certain circumstances it is possible for sybils to make all agents better off. While collusion is generally bad, in the context of scrip systems it actually tends to make all agents better off, not merely those who collude. These results also provide insight into the effects of allowing agents to advertise and loan money. While many extensions of Nash equilibrium have been proposed that address collusion and other issues relevant to distributed and peer-to-peer systems, our results show that none of them adequately address the issues raised by sybils and collusion in scrip systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2008arXiv

Toward Expressive and Scalable Sponsored Search Auctions

Internet search results are a growing and highly profitable advertising platform. Search providers auction advertising slots to advertisers on their search result pages. Due to the high volume of searches and the users' low tolerance for search result latency, it is imperative to resolve these auctions fast. Current approaches restrict the expressiveness of bids in order to achieve fast winner determination, which is the problem of allocating slots to advertisers so as to maximize the expected revenue given the advertisers' bids. The goal of our work is to permit more expressive bidding, thus allowing advertisers to achieve complex advertising goals, while still providing fast and scalable techniques for winner determination.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint1998arXiv

Plausibility Measures and Default Reasoning

We introduce a new approach to modeling uncertainty based on plausibility measures. This approach is easily seen to generalize other approaches to modeling uncertainty, such as probability measures, belief functions, and possibility measures. We focus on one application of plausibility measures in this paper: default reasoning. In recent years, a number of different semantics for defaults have been proposed, such as preferential structures, $ε$-semantics, possibilistic structures, and $κ$-rankings, that have been shown to be characterized by the same set of axioms, known as the KLM properties. While this was viewed as a surprise, we show here that it is almost inevitable. In the framework of plausibility measures, we can give a necessary condition for the KLM axioms to be sound, and an additional condition necessary and sufficient to ensure that the KLM axioms are complete. This additional condition is so weak that it is almost always met whenever the axioms are sound. In particular, it is easily seen to hold for all the proposals made in the literature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access