Uncertainty quantification and exploration-exploitation trade-off in humans

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07647v1
• Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:03:04 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty quantification and exploration-exploitation trade-off in humans
• Authors: Antonio Candelieri, Andrea Ponti, Francesco Archetti
• Abstract summary: The main objective of this paper is to outline a theoretical framework to analyse how humans' decision-making strategies under uncertainty manage the trade-off between information gathering (exploration) and reward seeking (exploitation)
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The main objective of this paper is to outline a theoretical framework to analyse how humans' decision-making strategies under uncertainty manage the trade-off between information gathering (exploration) and reward seeking (exploitation). A key observation, motivating this line of research, is the awareness that human learners are amazingly fast and effective at adapting to unfamiliar environments and incorporating upcoming knowledge: this is an intriguing behaviour for cognitive sciences as well as an important challenge for Machine Learning. The target problem considered is active learning in a black-box optimization task and more specifically how the exploration/exploitation dilemma can be modelled within Gaussian Process based Bayesian Optimization framework, which is in turn based on uncertainty quantification. The main contribution is to analyse humans' decisions with respect to Pareto rationality where the two objectives are improvement expected and uncertainty quantification. According to this Pareto rationality model, if a decision set contains a Pareto efficient (dominant) strategy, a rational decision maker should always select the dominant strategy over its dominated alternatives. The distance from the Pareto frontier determines whether a choice is (Pareto) rational (i.e., lays on the frontier) or is associated to "exasperate" exploration. However, since the uncertainty is one of the two objectives defining the Pareto frontier, we have investigated three different uncertainty quantification measures and selected the one resulting more compliant with the Pareto rationality model proposed. The key result is an analytical framework to characterize how deviations from "rationality" depend on uncertainty quantifications and the evolution of the reward seeking process.

Related papers

• Scalarisation-based risk concepts for robust multi-objective optimisation [4.12484724941528]
  We study the multi-objective case of this problem. We identify that the majority of all robust multi-objective algorithms rely on two key operations: robustification and scalarisation. As these operations are not necessarily commutative, the order that they are performed in has an impact on the resulting solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-16T16:11:00Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• On the Complexity of Adversarial Decision Making [101.14158787665252]
  We show that the Decision-Estimation Coefficient is necessary and sufficient to obtain low regret for adversarial decision making. We provide new structural results that connect the Decision-Estimation Coefficient to variants of other well-known complexity measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T06:20:37Z)
• Explainability's Gain is Optimality's Loss? -- How Explanations Bias Decision-making [0.0]
  Explanations help to facilitate communication between the algorithm and the human decision-maker. Feature-based explanations' semantics of causal models induce leakage from the decision-maker's prior beliefs. Such differences can lead to sub-optimal and biased decision outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T11:43:42Z)
• The Statistical Complexity of Interactive Decision Making [126.04974881555094]
  We provide a complexity measure, the Decision-Estimation Coefficient, that is proven to be both necessary and sufficient for sample-efficient interactive learning. A unified algorithm design principle, Estimation-to-Decisions (E2D), transforms any algorithm for supervised estimation into an online algorithm for decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-27T02:53:44Z)
• Gamifying optimization: a Wasserstein distance-based analysis of human search [0.0]
  This paper outlines a theoretical framework to characterise humans' decision-making strategies under uncertainty. The key element in this paper is the representation of behavioural patterns of human learners as a discrete probability distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-12T18:23:46Z)
• Why do you think that? Exploring Faithful Sentence-Level Rationales Without Supervision [60.62434362997016]
  We propose a differentiable training-framework to create models which output faithful rationales on a sentence level. Our model solves the task based on each rationale individually and learns to assign high scores to those which solved the task best.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T12:54:28Z)
• Inverse Active Sensing: Modeling and Understanding Timely Decision-Making [111.07204912245841]
  We develop a framework for the general setting of evidence-based decision-making under endogenous, context-dependent time pressure. We demonstrate how it enables modeling intuitive notions of surprise, suspense, and optimality in decision strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-25T02:30:45Z)
• Causal Strategic Linear Regression [5.672132510411465]
  In many predictive decision-making scenarios, such as credit scoring and academic testing, a decision-maker must construct a model that accounts for agents' propensity to "game" the decision rule. We join concurrent work in modeling agents' outcomes as a function of their changeable attributes. We provide efficient algorithms for learning decision rules that optimize three distinct decision-maker objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T03:57:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.