IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2607.17316.html

Rationalizing Boltzmann Rationality: An Axiomatic Characterization of Entropy-Regularized Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Silviu Pitis

Abstract

The softmax policy $\pi(a \mid s) \propto \exp(\beta Q(s,a))$ is the default model of stochastic choice in reinforcement learning (RL). Various justifications based on robustness, exploration, and optimization have been offered in the RL literature, but none uniquely derives the softmax form from first principles. This leaves a basic tension unresolved: the entropy bonus in the soft Bellman equation violates the Independence axiom that underwrites the Markov decision process (MDP) reward structure. We dissolve this tension by distinguishing two kinds of randomness: chance and choice. By restricting von Neumann-Morgenstern (VNM) Independence to environmental lotteries over base prospects, we show that imposing independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) and monotonicity on the policy and value functions at choice nodes uniquely determines the Boltzmann policy, the entropy-regularized representation, and the soft Bellman equation. The choice between the soft and hard Bellman equations thus reduces to a design decision: whether the agent values its own ability to choose. We develop RL-specific consequences, including return monotonicity and convergence under generalized discounting, and synthesize the independent lines from economics and information theory that arrive at the same structure, offering a normative assessment of when IIA is appropriate for agent design.

Suggested Citation

  • Silviu Pitis, 2026. "Rationalizing Boltzmann Rationality: An Axiomatic Characterization of Entropy-Regularized Policies," Papers 2607.17316, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.17316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.17316
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Milgrom & Ilya Segal, 2002. "Envelope Theorems for Arbitrary Choice Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 583-601, March.
    2. Kreps, David M, 1979. "A Representation Theorem for "Preference for Flexibility"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 565-577, May.
    3. 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.
    4. David S. Ahn & Todd Sarver, 2013. "Preference for Flexibility and Random Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 341-361, January.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Dynamic Logit With Choice Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 651-691, March.
    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. de Oliveira, Henrique & Denti, Tommaso & Mihm, Maximilian & Ozbek, Kemal, 2017. "Rationally inattentive preferences and hidden information costs," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    2. Austin Knies & Jorge Lorca & Emerson Melo, 2020. "A Recursive Logit Model with Choice Aversion and Its Application to Transportation Networks," Papers 2010.02398, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    3. Jorge Lorca & Emerson Melo, 2020. "Choice Aversion in Directed Networks," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 879, Central Bank of Chile.
    4. Lin, Yi-Hsuan, 2022. "Stochastic choice and rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    5. Schenone, Pablo, 2016. "Identifying subjective beliefs in subjective state space models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 59-72.
    6. Sean Duffy & John Smith, 2025. "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 701-734, November.
    7. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 2016. "A theory of stochastic choice under uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 164-173.
    8. Miguel Ángel Ballester & Jose Apesteguia, 2018. "Separating Predicted Randomness from Noise," Working Papers 1018, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Nobuo Koida, 2018. "Anticipated stochastic choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(3), pages 545-574, May.
    10. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    11. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2019. "Subjective contingencies and limited Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-45.
    12. , & ,, 2015. "Hidden actions and preferences for timing of resolution of uncertainty," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), May.
    13. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: outside and inside the black box," Working Papers 663, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    14. Mark Dean & John McNeil, 2014. "Preference for Flexibility and Random Choice: an Experimental Analysis," Working Papers 2014-10, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    15. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2013. "Imperfect Attention and Menu Evaluations," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-98, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    16. Mensch, Jeffrey, 2021. "Rational inattention and the monotone likelihood ratio property," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    17. Jianjun Miao & Hao Xing, 2024. "Dynamic discrete choice under rational inattention," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 597-652, May.
    18. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2020. "Willpower and compromise effect," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), January.
    19. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Mihm, Maximilian, 2025. "A characterization of the Luce choice rule for an arbitrary collection of menus," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    20. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.

    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:2607.17316. 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: https://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.