Anchoring vs Taste: a model

post by Stuart_Armstrong · 2019-02-13T19:03:08.851Z · LW · GW · 0 comments

Contents

  Anchoring or taste
    Looking into the agent
    A human-like agent
    A non-human agent
None
No comments

Here I'll develop my observation [LW · GW] that anchoring bias is formally similar to taste based preferences, and develop some more formalism for learning the values/preferences/reward functions of a human.

Anchoring or taste

An agent $H$ (think of them as a simplified human) confronts one of two scenarios:

• In scenario I, the agent sees a movie scene where someone wonders how much to pay for a bar of chocolate, spins a wheel, and gets either £0.01 or £100. Then $H$ is asked how much they would spend for the same bar of chocolate.

• In scenario II, the agent sees a movie scene in which someone eats a bar of chocolate, which reveals that the bar has nuts, or doesn't. Then $H$ is asked how much they would spend for the same bar of chocolate.

In both cases, $H$ will spend £1 for the bar (£0.01/no nuts) or £3 (£100/nuts).

We want to say that scenario I is due to anchoring bias, while scenario II is due to taste differences. Can we?

Looking into the agent

We can't directly say anything about $H$ just by their actions, of course - even with simplicity priors. But we can make some assumptions if we look inside their algorithm, and see how they model [LW · GW] the situation.

Assume that $H$'s internal structure consists of two pieces: a modeller $M$ and an assessor $A$. Any input $i$ is streamed to both $M$ and $A$. Then $M$ can interrogate $A$ by sending an internal variable $v$, receives another variable in return, and then outputs $o$.

In pictures, this looks like this, where each variable has been indexed by the timestep at which it is transmitted:

Here the input $i_1$ decomposes in $m$ (the movie) and $q$ (the question). Assume that these variables are sufficiently well grounded [LW · GW] that when I describe them ("the modeller", "the movie", "the key variables", and so on), these descriptions mean what they seem to.

So the modeller $M$ will construct a list of all the key variables, and pass these on to the assessor $A$ to get an idea of the price. The price will return in $v_3$, and then $M$ will simply output that value as $o_4$.

A human-like agent

First we'll design $H$ to look human-like. In scenario I the modeller $M$ will pass $v_2=q$ to the assessor $A$ - only the question $q=$ "how much is a bar of chocolate worth?" will be passed on (in a real world scenario, more details about what kind of chocolate it is would be included, but let's ignore those details here). The answer $v_3$ will be £1 or £3, as indicated above, dependent on $m$ (which is also an input into $A$).

In scenario II, the modeller will pass on $v_2=\{q,n\}$ where $n$ is a boolean that indicates whether the chocolate contains nuts or not. The response $v_3$ will be £1 if $n=0$ (false) or £3 if $n=1$ (true).

Can we now say that anchoring is a bias but the taste of nuts is a preference? Almost, we're nearly there. To complete this, we need to make the normative assumption [LW · GW]:

• $\alpha$: key variables that are not passed on by $M$ are not relevant to the agent's reward function.

Now we can say that anchoring is a bias (because the variable that changes the assessment, the movie, affects $A$ but is not passed on via $M$), while taste is likely a preference (because the key taste variable is passed on by $M$).

A non-human agent

We can also design an $H^{\prime }$ with the same behaviour as $H$, but clearly non-human. For $H^{\prime }$, $v_2^{\prime }=q$ in scenario II, while $v_2^{\prime }=\{q,n\}$ is scenario I, where $n$ is a boolean encoding whether the movie-chocolate was bought for £0.01 or for £100.

In that case, $\alpha$ will assess anchoring as a demonstration of preference, while the presence of nuts is clearly an irrational bias. And I'd agree with this assessment - but I wouldn't call $H^{\prime }$ a human, for reasons explained here [LW · GW].

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.