1. Akerlof, G.A. Procrastination and
obedience. American Econ.
Rev.: Papers and Proc. 81 (1991).
2. Albers, S., Kraft, D. Motivating time-inconsistent agents: A computational
approach. In Intl. Conf. Web and
Internet Econ. (2016).
3. Albers, S., Kraft, D. On the value
of penalties in time-inconsistent
planning. In Proc. 44th Intl. Colloq.
on Automata, Languages and
4. Ariely, D., Wertenbroch, K. Procrastination,
deadlines, and performance:
self-control by precommitment.
Psych. Sci. 13 (2002).
5. Carstensen, P. The complexity of
some problems in parametric
linear and combinatorial programming.
PhD thesis, U. Michigan (1983).
6. Diestel, R. Graph Theory, 3 edn.
Springer (Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005).
7. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G.,
O’Donoghue, T. Time discounting
and time preference. J. Econ. Lit. 40, 2
(June 2002), 351–401.
8. Gravin, N., Immorlica, N., Lucier, B.,
Pountourakis, E. Procrastination
with variable present bias. In Proc.
ACM Conf. Econ. Comp. (2016).
9. Kaur, S., Kremer, M., Mullainathan, S.
Self-control and the development
of work arrangements. American
Econ. Rev.: Papers and Proceedings
10. Kleinberg, J., Oren, S., Raghavan, M.
Planning problems for sophisticated © 2018 ACM 0001-0782/18/3 $15.00
agents with present bias. In Proc.
ACM Conf. Econ. Comp. (2016).
11. Kleinberg, J., Oren, S., Raghavan, M.
Planning with multiple biases. In
Proc. ACM Conf. Econ. Comp.
12. Laibson, D. Golden eggs and
hyperbolic discounting. Q. J. Econ.
112, 2 (1997), 443–478.
13. Nikolova, E., Kelner, J.A., Brand, M.,
Mitzenmacher, M. Stochastic
shortest paths via quasi-convex
maximization. In Proc. 14th European
Symposium on Algorithms (2006),
14. O’Donoghue, T., Rabin, M. Doing it now
or later. American Econ. Rev. 89 (1999).
15. O’Donoghue, T., Rabin, M.
Procrastination on long-term projects.
J. Econ. Behav. Org. 66 (2008).
16. Pollak, R. A. Consistent planning. Rev.
Econ. Studies 35, 2 (Apr. 1968), 201–208.
17. Roughgarden, T. Lecture 19: Time-
inconsistent planning, 2016. http://
18. Russell, S.L., Norvig, P. Artificial
Intelligence: A Modern Approach.
Prentice Hall (Upper Saddle River NJ,
19. Strotz, R.H. Myopia and inconsistency
in dynamic utility maximization. Rev.
Econ. Studies 23 (1955).
20. Tang, P., Teng, Y., Wang, Z., Xiao, S.,
Xu, Y. Computational issues in time-inconsistent planning. In Proc. 31st
AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence
bias—they still prefer avoiding costs in the present time
period—but their sophistication does mean that they can
take measures to reduce the future effects of present bias in
their plans. Finally Kleinberg et al., 11 studied the behavior
of agents that exhibit two biases concurrently: present bias,
as in this paper, and sunk-cost bias, which is the tendency to
reason about costs already incurred in the formulation of
plans for the future.
We thank Supreet Kaur, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Ted
O’Donoghue for valuable discussions and suggestions.
Jon Kleinberg ( firstname.lastname@example.org),
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Sigal Oren ( email@example.com), Ben
Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er
He was the conscience of the
computing industry...and paid for it.
The first full-length biography of Edmund Berkeley,
computing pioneer, social activist, and founding
member of the ACM. It is an historical narrative of a
man ultimately in favor of engineering peace, instead
of war, and how his career was ultimately damaged by
politicians determined to portray him as a Communist
sympathizer. Berkeley’s life work provides a lens to
understand social and political issues surrounding the
early development of electronic computers which ties
directly to current debates about the use of autonomous