Computing Preferred Safe Beliefs

We recently proposed a definition of a language for nonmonotonic reasoning based on intuitionistic logic. Our main idea is a generalization of the notion of answer sets for arbitrary propositional theories. We call this extended framework safe beliefs. We present an algorithm, based on the Davis-Putnam (DP) method, to compute safe beliefs for arbitrary propositional theories. We briefly discuss some ideas on how to extend this paradigm to incorporate preferences

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.Comment: In Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR '10

Optimal choice and beliefs with ex ante savoring and ex post disappointment

We propose a new decision criterion under risk in which people extract both utility from anticipatory feelings ex ante and disutility from disappointment ex post. The decision maker chooses his degree of optimism, given that more optimism raises both the utility of ex ante feelings and the risk of disappointment ex post. We characterize the optimal beliefs and the preferences under risk generated by this mental process and apply this criterion to a simple portfolio choice/insurance problem. We show that these preferences are consistent with the preference reversal in the Allais’ paradoxes and predict that the decision maker takes on less risk compared to an expected utility maximizer. This speaks to the equity premium puzzle and to the preference for low deductibles in insurance contracts. Keywords: endogenous beliefs, anticipatory feeling, disappointment, optimism, decision under risk, portfolio allocation