Weighted Sets of Probabilities and Minimax Weighted Expected Regret: New Approaches for Representing Uncertainty and Making Decisions
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interpretability can be maintained if human behaviour is modelled using nondeterminism.
“However, note that interpretability can be maintained if human behaviour is modelled using nondeterminism.”
From Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Halpern & Leung, 2013
The Introduction (pp. 1–2) discusses representing an agent’s uncertainty with probability measures, and the Conclusion (p. 9) describes weighted probabilities and expected regret. A search for interpretability, human behaviour, and nondeterminism found no passage in our copy addressing whether nondeterministic models of human behaviour preserve interpretability. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Anderson, N. H. (2001) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,939 · see citing works
The Theory of Statistical Decision
Savage, L. J. (1951) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1951.10500768 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1986) · AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.275405 · Cited by 668 · see citing works
Chew, S. H. (1983) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912052 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Kreps, D. M. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429498619 · Cited by 579 · see citing works
Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2010) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203358061_chapter_6 · Cited by 484 · see citing works
Epstein, L. G., & Schneider, M. (2007) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00464.x · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian
Epstein, L. G., & Breton, M. L. (1993) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1006/jeth.1993.1056 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Dynamic choice under ambiguity
Siniscalchi, M. (2011) · Theoretical Economics · doi:10.3982/te571 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Anticipating Regret: Why Fewer Options May Be Better
Sarver, T. (2008) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.0012-9682.2008.00834.x · Cited by 181 · see citing works
A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs
Pires, C. P. (2002) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1023/a:1021255808323 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Regret aversion and opportunity dependence
Hayashi, T. (2007) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2007.07.001 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Axioms for minimax regret choice correspondences
Stoye, J. (2011) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2011.10.004 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Dynamic Decision Making with Belief FunctionsPreprint
Jaffray, J. (1992) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Statistical decisions under ambiguity
Stoye, J. (2010) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-010-9227-2 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Stopping with anticipated regret
Hayashi, T. (2009) · Journal of Mathematical Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2009.03.011 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [1][1] F. Anscombe and R. Aumann. A definition of subjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 34:199-205, 1963. -
- [2][2] A. Chateauneuf and J. Faro. Ambiguity through confidence functions. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 45:535 - 558, 2009. -
- [10][10] J. Niehans. Zur preisbildung bei ungewissen erwartungen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift f¨ ur Volkswirtschaft und Statistik , 84(5):433-456, 1948. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Project Net Present Value estimation under uncertainty
Gaspars-Wieloch, H. (2017) · Central European Journal of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10100-017-0500-0 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Mavromatidis, G., Orehounig, K., & Carmeliet, J. (2018) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.081 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
A comparison of methods for the optimal design of Distributed Energy Systems under uncertainty
Καρμέλλος, Μ., Georgiou, P. N., & Mavrotas, G. (2019) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.153 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems
Dalrymple, D. "., Skalse, J., Bengio, Y., Russell, S., Tegmark, M., Seshia, S., Omohundro, S., Szegedy, C., Goldhaber, B., Ammann, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06624 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationGeneralized regret based decision making
Yager, R. R. (2017) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2017.08.001 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Goroshit, M., Hen, M., & Ferrari, J. R. (2018) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9801-2 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
A Computationally Grounded, Weighted Doxastic Logic
Chen, T., Primiero, G., Raimondi, F., & Rungta, N. (2015) · Studia Logica · doi:10.1007/s11225-015-9621-4 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Minimizing regret in dynamic decision problems
Halpern, J. Y., & Leung, S. (2015) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-015-9526-8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationMaxmin weighted expected utility: a simpler characterization
Halpern, J. Y., & Leung, S. (2015) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-015-9516-x · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationFehr, A. M. A. (2015) · ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) · doi:10.25777/ea13-b842 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Weighted Regret-Based Likelihood: A New Approach to Describing Uncertainty
Halpern, J. Y. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_23
Self-citationLeast-squares regret and partially strategic players
Chatkupt, C. (2015) · London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science)
Minimizing Regret in Dynamic Decision ProblemsPreprint
Halpern, J. Y., & Leung, S. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.00152
Self-citationWeighted Regret-Based Likelihood: A New Approach to Describing Uncertainty
Halpern, J. Y. (2015) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.4859
Self-citationProbabilistic Dependency Graphs
Richardson, O., & Halpern, J. Y. (2021) · AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i13.17445
Self-citation
- Authors
- Halpern, J. Y., & Leung, S.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- ORCID
- Halpern, Joseph Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2013
- arXiv
- 1302.5681
- OpenAlex
- W2949632474
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2013: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0534064, 0812045, W911NF-09-1-0281, 0911036, FA9550-08-1-0438, FA9550-09-1-0266)
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-, FA9550-08-1-0438, FA9550-09-1-0266, W911NF-09-1-0281, IIS-0812045, IIS-0534064, IIS-0911036)
- Army Research Office (FA9550-09-1-0266, IIS-0534064, 1-0438, FA9550-08-1-0438, W911NF, IIS-0812045, IIS-0911036, W911NF-09-1-0281)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Keywords
- uncertainty representation, Bayesian updating, learning under uncertainty, decision making under uncertainty, dynamic decision making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
