Axiomatic Choice and the Decision-Evaluation Paradox

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21836v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 03:50:55 GMT
• Title: Axiomatic Choice and the Decision-Evaluation Paradox
• Authors: Ben Abramowitz, Nicholas Mattei,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a framework for modeling decisions with axioms that are statements about decisions, e.g., ethical constraints.<n>We define a taxonomy of decision axioms based on their structural properties and demonstrate a tension between the use of axioms to make decisions and the use of axioms to evaluate decisions which we call the Decision-Evaluation Paradox.
• Score: 4.896826879445548
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce a framework for modeling decisions with axioms that are statements about decisions, e.g., ethical constraints. Using our framework we define a taxonomy of decision axioms based on their structural properties and demonstrate a tension between the use of axioms to make decisions and the use of axioms to evaluate decisions which we call the Decision-Evaluation Paradox. We argue that the Decision-Evaluation Paradox arises with realistic axiom structures, and the paradox illuminates why one must be exceptionally careful when training models on decision data or applying axioms to make and evaluate decisions.

Related papers

• Empirical Decision Theory [9.90463321344445]
  Analyzing decision problems under uncertainty commonly relies on idealizing assumptions about the describability of the world.<n>Most classical decision-theoretic approaches are not applicable if the states of the world are inaccessible.<n>We propose a decision model that retains the appeal and simplicity of the original theory, but completely overcomes the need to specify the states of the world explicitly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-05T12:46:04Z)
• Learning the Value of Value Learning [0.0]
  We extend the Jeffrey-Bolker framework to model refinements in values and prove a value-of-information theorem for axiological refinement.<n>In multi-agent settings, we establish that mutual refinement will characteristically transform zero-sum games into positive-sum interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T19:06:30Z)
• DecisionFlow: Advancing Large Language Model as Principled Decision Maker [49.088778182807395]
  DecisionFlow is a novel decision modeling framework that guides models to reason over structured representations of actions, attributes, and constraints.<n>Rather than predicting answers directly from prompts, DecisionFlow builds a semantically grounded decision space and infers a latent utility function.<n> Empirical results show that DecisionFlow achieves up to 30% accuracy gains over strong prompting baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T16:23:53Z)
• Decision Making in Changing Environments: Robustness, Query-Based Learning, and Differential Privacy [59.64384863882473]
  We study the problem of interactive decision making in which the underlying environment changes over time subject to given constraints.<n>We propose a framework, which provides an complexity between the complexity and adversarial settings of decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T21:31:50Z)
• An epistemic logic for modeling decisions in the context of incomplete knowledge [9.104555003332344]
  This paper presents a new language for modeling decisions with incomplete knowledge. It combines three principles: stratification, autoepistemic logic, and definitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T13:27:04Z)
• Inverse Decision Modeling: Learning Interpretable Representations of Behavior [72.80902932543474]
  We develop an expressive, unifying perspective on inverse decision modeling. We use this to formalize the inverse problem (as a descriptive model) We illustrate how this structure enables learning (interpretable) representations of (bounded) rationality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:05:01Z)
• 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)
• A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offs [0.0]
  In prediction-based decision-making systems, different perspectives can be at odds. The short-term business goals of the decision makers are often in conflict with the decision subjects' wish to be treated fairly. We propose a framework to make these value-laden choices clearly visible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T20:31:55Z)
• Explainable Decision Making with Lean and Argumentative Explanations [11.644036228274176]
  We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness," explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-18T01:29:02Z)
• 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)

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.