We study the complexity of motivating time-inconsistent agents to complete long term projects in a graph-based planning model proposed by Kleinberg and Oren (2014). Given a task graph G with n nodes, our objective is to guide an agent towards a target node t under certain budget constraints. The crux is that the agent may change its strategy over time due to its present-bias. We consider two strategies to guide the agent. First, a single reward is placed at t and arbitrary edges can be removed from G. Secondly, rewards can be placed at arbitrary nodes of G but no edges must be deleted. In both cases we show that it is NP-complete to decide if a given budget is sufficient to keep the agent motivated. For the first setting, we give complementing upper and lower bounds on the approximability of the minimum required budget. In particular, we devise a $(1+\sqrt {n})$ -approximation algorithm and prove NP-hardness for ratios greater than $\sqrt {n}/3$ . We also argue that the second setting does not permit any efficient approximation unless P = NP.

People tend to behave inconsistently over time due to an inherent present bias. As this may impair performance, social and economic settings need to be adapted accordingly. Common tools to reduce the impact of time-inconsistent behavior are penalties and prohibition. Such tools are called commitment devices. In recent work Kleinberg and Oren [EC, 2014] connect the design of a prohibition-based commitment device to a combinatorial problem in which edges are removed from a task graph G with n nodes. However, this problem is NP-hard to approximate within a ratio less than n^(1/2)/3 [Albers and Kraft, WINE, 2016]. To address this issue, we propose a penalty-based commitment device that does not delete edges, but raises their cost. The benefits of our approach are twofold. On the conceptual side, we show that penalties are up to 1/beta times more efficient than prohibition, where 0 < beta <= 1 parameterizes the present bias. On the computational side, we improve approximability by presenting a 2-approximation algorithm for allocating penalties. To complement this result, we prove that optimal penalties are NP-hard to approximate within a ratio of 1.08192.