IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2501.09139.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A robust measure of complexity

Author

Listed:
  • Egor Bronnikov
  • Elias Tsakas

Abstract

We introduce a robust belief-based measure of complexity. The idea is that task A is deemed more complex than task B if the probability of solving A correctly is smaller than the probability of solving B correctly regardless of the reward. We fully characterize the corresponding order over the set of tasks. The main characteristic of this relation is that it depends, not only on difficulty (like most complexity definitions in the literature) but also on ex ante uncertainty. Finally, we show that for every task for which information is optimally acquired, there exists a more complex task which always induces less effort regardless of the reward.

Suggested Citation

  • Egor Bronnikov & Elias Tsakas, 2025. "A robust measure of complexity," Papers 2501.09139, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2501.09139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.09139
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shorrocks, A F, 1980. "The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 613-625, April.
    2. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Reasoning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(4), pages 881-925.
    3. Ok, Efe A., 2002. "Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 429-449, June.
    4. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    5. Michael Woodford, 2020. "Modeling Imprecision in Perception, Valuation, and Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 579-601, August.
    6. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber, 2023. "Cognitive Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(4), pages 2021-2067.
    7. James Banovetz & Ryan Oprea, 2023. "Complexity and Procedural Choice," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 384-413, May.
    8. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2022. "Rationally Inattentive Behavior: Characterizing and Generalizing Shannon Entropy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(6), pages 1676-1715.
    9. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    10. Ryan Oprea, 2024. "Decisions under Risk Are Decisions under Complexity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(12), pages 3789-3811, December.
    11. Abreu, Dilip & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "The Structure of Nash Equilibrium in Repeated Games with Finite Automata," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1259-1281, November.
    12. Tommaso Denti, 2022. "Posterior Separable Cost of Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(10), pages 3215-3259, October.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice--Recent Advances," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 3-30, Fall.
    14. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1986. "Finite automata play the repeated prisoner's dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-96, June.
    15. Benjamin Hébert & Michael Woodford, 2021. "Neighborhood-Based Information Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(10), pages 3225-3255, October.
    16. Mark Dean & Nathaniel Neligh, 2023. "Experimental Tests of Rational Inattention," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(12), pages 3415-3461.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hébert, Benjamin & Woodford, Michael, 2023. "Rational inattention when decisions take time," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    2. Flynn, Joel P. & Sastry, Karthik A., 2023. "Strategic mistakes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Andrew Caplin & David J. Deming & Søren Leth-Petersen & Ben Weidmann, 2023. "Economic Decision-Making Skill Predicts Income in Two Countries," NBER Working Papers 31674, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Walker-Jones, David, 2023. "Rational inattention with multiple attributes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    6. Tommaso Denti & Doron Ravid, 2023. "Robust Predictions in Games with Rational Inattention," Papers 2306.09964, arXiv.org.
    7. Denti, Tommaso, 2023. "Unrestricted information acquisition," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    8. Matysková, Ludmila & Montes, Alfonso, 2023. "Bayesian persuasion with costly information acquisition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Yuan Gu & Chao Hung Chan, 2024. "Complexity Aversion," Papers 2406.18463, arXiv.org.
    10. Jamie Hentall-MacCuish, 2024. "Costly attention and retirement," IFS Working Papers W24/59, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Sergei Mikhalishchev & Vladimir Novak, 2024. "Inattention, Stability, and Reform Reluctance," Working and Discussion Papers WP 8/2024, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    12. Philippe Jehiel & Jakub Steiner, 2020. "Selective Sampling with Information-Storage Constraints [On interim rationality, belief formation and learning in decision problems with bounded memory]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1753-1781.
    13. Emerson Melo, 2022. "On the Distributional Robustness of Finite Rational Inattention Models," Papers 2208.03370, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    14. Figueroa, Nicolás & Guadalupi, Carla, 2021. "Testing the sender: When signaling is not enough," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    15. Civelli, Andrea & Deck, Cary & Tutino, Antonella, 2022. "Attention and choices with multiple states and actions: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 86-102.
    16. Matysková, Ludmila & Rogers, Brian & Steiner, Jakub & Sun, Keh-Kuan, 2020. "Habits as adaptations: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 391-406.
    17. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.
    18. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. David Walker-Jones, 2019. "Rational Inattention and Perceptual Distance," Papers 1909.00888, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    20. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2501.09139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.