Exploring the hierarchical structure of human plans via program generation

AI-generated keywords: Hierarchical structure Experimental paradigm Utility maximization Minimum description length Generative model

AI-generated Key Points

  • The paper explores the hierarchical structure of human plans
  • Participants were asked to create programs with explicit hierarchical structure
  • Two principles of human behavior were tested: utility maximization and minimum description length
  • Humans are sensitive to both metrics, but there is a preference for programs with reuse beyond what MDL predicts
  • The researchers extended the MDL account into a generative model over programs, modeling hierarchy choice as the induction of a grammar over actions
  • This extended account provides the best prediction of human behavior and highlights a principle that guides hierarchical planning
  • The paper draws on literatures such as sequence learning, reinforcement learning, and Bayesian program induction to inform their approach
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Carlos G. Correa, Sophia Sanborn, Mark K. Ho, Frederick Callaway, Nathaniel D. Daw, Thomas L. Griffiths

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Human behavior is inherently hierarchical, resulting from the decomposition of a task into subtasks or an abstract action into concrete actions. However, behavior is typically measured as a sequence of actions, which makes it difficult to infer its hierarchical structure. In this paper, we explore how people form hierarchically-structured plans, using an experimental paradigm that makes hierarchical representations observable: participants create programs that produce sequences of actions in a language with explicit hierarchical structure. This task lets us test two well-established principles of human behavior: utility maximization (i.e. using fewer actions) and minimum description length (MDL; i.e. having a shorter program). We find that humans are sensitive to both metrics, but that both accounts fail to predict a qualitative feature of human-created programs, namely that people prefer programs with reuse over and above the predictions of MDL. We formalize this preference for reuse by extending the MDL account into a generative model over programs, modeling hierarchy choice as the induction of a grammar over actions. Our account can explain the preference for reuse and provides the best prediction of human behavior, going beyond simple accounts of compressibility to highlight a principle that guides hierarchical planning.

Submitted to arXiv on 30 Nov. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2311.18644v1

This paper explores the hierarchical structure of human plans by using an experimental paradigm that allows for the observation of hierarchical representations. The participants in the study were asked to create programs that generate sequences of actions in a language with explicit hierarchical structure. The researchers aimed to test two well-established principles of human behavior: utility maximization (using fewer actions) and minimum description length (having a shorter program). They found that humans are sensitive to both metrics, but neither account could predict a qualitative feature of human-created programs, which is the preference for programs with reuse beyond what MDL predicts. To explain this preference, the researchers extended the MDL account into a generative model over programs, modeling hierarchy choice as the induction of a grammar over actions. This extended account provides the best prediction of human behavior and highlights a principle that guides hierarchical planning. The paper draws on literatures such as sequence learning, reinforcement learning, and Bayesian program induction to inform their approach to modeling complex, hierarchical planning.
Created on 01 Dec. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.