Hierarchical inference as a source of human biases

The finding that human decision-making is systematically biased continues to have an immense impact on both research and policymaking. Prevailing views ascribe biases to limited computational resources, which require humans to resort to less costly resource-rational heuristics. Here, we propose that many biases in fact arise due to a computationally costly way of coping with uncertainty—namely, hierarchical inference—which by nature incorporates information that can seem irrelevant. We show how, in uncertain situations, Bayesian inference may avail of the environment’s hierarchical structure to reduce uncertainty at the cost of introducing bias. We illustrate how this account can explain a range of familiar biases, focusing in detail on the halo effect and on the neglect of base rates. In each case, we show how a hierarchical-inference account takes the characterization of a bias beyond phenomenological description by revealing the computations and assumptions it might reflect. Furthermore, we highlight new predictions entailed by our account concerning factors that could mitigate or exacerbate bias, some of which have already garnered empirical support. We conclude that a hierarchical inference account may inform scientists and policy makers with a richer understanding of the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of human decision-making

A hierarchical approach to multi-project planning under uncertainty

We survey several viewpoints on the management of the planning complexity of multi-project organisations under uncertainty. A positioning framework is proposed to distinguish between different types of project-driven organisations, which is meant to aid project management in the choice between the various existing planning approaches. We discuss the current state of the art of hierarchical planning approaches both for traditional manufacturing and for project environments. We introduce a generic hierarchical project planning and control framework that serves to position planning methods for multi-project planning under uncertainty. We discuss multiple techniques for dealing with the uncertainty inherent to the different hierarchical stages in a multi-project organisation. In the last part of this paper we discuss two cases from practice and we relate these practical cases to the positioning framework that is put forward in the paper

Comparison of data-driven uncertainty quantification methods for a carbon dioxide storage benchmark scenario

A variety of methods is available to quantify uncertainties arising with\-in the modeling of flow and transport in carbon dioxide storage, but there is a lack of thorough comparisons. Usually, raw data from such storage sites can hardly be described by theoretical statistical distributions since only very limited data is available. Hence, exact information on distribution shapes for all uncertain parameters is very rare in realistic applications. We discuss and compare four different methods tested for data-driven uncertainty quantification based on a benchmark scenario of carbon dioxide storage. In the benchmark, for which we provide data and code, carbon dioxide is injected into a saline aquifer modeled by the nonlinear capillarity-free fractional flow formulation for two incompressible fluid phases, namely carbon dioxide and brine. To cover different aspects of uncertainty quantification, we incorporate various sources of uncertainty such as uncertainty of boundary conditions, of conceptual model definitions and of material properties. We consider recent versions of the following non-intrusive and intrusive uncertainty quantification methods: arbitary polynomial chaos, spatially adaptive sparse grids, kernel-based greedy interpolation and hybrid stochastic Galerkin. The performance of each approach is demonstrated assessing expectation value and standard deviation of the carbon dioxide saturation against a reference statistic based on Monte Carlo sampling. We compare the convergence of all methods reporting on accuracy with respect to the number of model runs and resolution. Finally we offer suggestions about the methods' advantages and disadvantages that can guide the modeler for uncertainty quantification in carbon dioxide storage and beyond

Combining Subgoal Graphs with Reinforcement Learning to Build a Rational Pathfinder

In this paper, we present a hierarchical path planning framework called SG-RL (subgoal graphs-reinforcement learning), to plan rational paths for agents maneuvering in continuous and uncertain environments. By "rational", we mean (1) efficient path planning to eliminate first-move lags; (2) collision-free and smooth for agents with kinematic constraints satisfied. SG-RL works in a two-level manner. At the first level, SG-RL uses a geometric path-planning method, i.e., Simple Subgoal Graphs (SSG), to efficiently find optimal abstract paths, also called subgoal sequences. At the second level, SG-RL uses an RL method, i.e., Least-Squares Policy Iteration (LSPI), to learn near-optimal motion-planning policies which can generate kinematically feasible and collision-free trajectories between adjacent subgoals. The first advantage of the proposed method is that SSG can solve the limitations of sparse reward and local minima trap for RL agents; thus, LSPI can be used to generate paths in complex environments. The second advantage is that, when the environment changes slightly (i.e., unexpected obstacles appearing), SG-RL does not need to reconstruct subgoal graphs and replan subgoal sequences using SSG, since LSPI can deal with uncertainties by exploiting its generalization ability to handle changes in environments. Simulation experiments in representative scenarios demonstrate that, compared with existing methods, SG-RL can work well on large-scale maps with relatively low action-switching frequencies and shorter path lengths, and SG-RL can deal with small changes in environments. We further demonstrate that the design of reward functions and the types of training environments are important factors for learning feasible policies.Comment: 20 page