Time-Inconsistent Planning: Simple Motivation Is Hard to Find
Fedor V. Fomin, Torstein J. F. Strømme
Abstract
People sometimes act differently when making decisions affecting the present moment versus decisions affecting the future only. This is referred to as time-inconsistent behavior, and can be modeled as agents exhibiting present bias. A resulting phenomenon is abandonment, which is when an agent initially pursues a task, but ultimately gives up before reaping the rewards. With the introduction of the graph-theoretic time-inconsistent planning model due to Kleinberg and Oren [1] , it has been possible to investigate the computational complexity of how a task designer best can support a present-biased agent in completing the task. In this paper, we study the complexity of finding a choice reduction for the agent; that is, how to remove edges and vertices from the task graph such that a present-biased agent will remain motivated to reach his target even for a limited reward. While this problem is NP-complete in general [2, 3], this is not necessarily true for instances which occur in practice, or for solutions which are of interest to task designers. For instance, a task designer may desire to find the best task graph which is not too complicated. We therefore investigate the problem of finding simple motivating subgraphs. These are structures where the agent will modify his plan at most k times along the way. We quantify this simplicity in the time-inconsistency model as a structural parameter: The number of branching vertices (vertices with out-degree at least 2) in a minimal motivating subgraph. Our results are as follows: We give a linear algorithm for finding an optimal motivating path, i. e. when k = 0. On the negative side, we show that finding a simple motivating subgraph is NP-complete even if we allow only a single branching vertex -revealing that simple motivating subgraphs are indeed hard to find. However, we give a pseudo-polynomial algorithm for the case when k is fixed and edge weights are rationals, which might be a reasonable assumption in practice. Keywords time-inconsistent planning • motivating subgraph • abandonment • choice reduction • present bias • time-inconsistent behaviour • graph theory • parameterized complexity • algorithms
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5154af08-a3cd-4380-b136-284d6a6dcc08Cited by top-tier papers2
- Inconsistent Planning: When in Doubt, Toss a Coin!Yuriy Dementiev, Fedor V. Fomin, Artur IgnatievAAAI 2022 · 4 citations
- Structural Approach to Guiding a Present-Biased AgentTatiana Belova, Yuriy Dementiev, Artur Ignatiev, Danil SagunovAAAI 2026
Related papers
- Present-Biased OptimizationFedor V. Fomin, Pierre Fraigniaud, Petr A. GolovachAAAI 2021 · 6 citations
- Analytically Tractable Models for Decision Making under Present BiasYasunori Akagi, Naoki Marumo, Takeshi KurashimaAAAI 2024 · 4 citations
- Delta Matters: An Analytically Tractable Model for beta-delta Discounting AgentsYasunori Akagi, Takeshi KurashimaAAAI 2026
- Resolving Inconsistencies in Simple Temporal Problems: A Parameterized ApproachKonrad K. Dabrowski, Peter Jonsson, Sebastian Ordyniak, George OsipovAAAI 2022 · 1 citation
- How Many Lines to Paint the City: Exact Edge-Cover in Temporal GraphsArgyrios Deligkas, Michelle Döring, Eduard Eiben, Tiger-Lily Goldsmith et al.AAAI 2025 · 8 citations
