A Perfect Cocktail Recipe: Mixing Decision Theories and Models of Stochastic Choice Ganna Pogrebna June 29, 2007 Blavatskyy, Pavlo and Ganna Pogrebna (2007)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Example of Quant’s Task in Croatian Banking Industry
Advertisements

Hypothesis Testing. To define a statistical Test we 1.Choose a statistic (called the test statistic) 2.Divide the range of possible values for the test.
Utility Theory.
Choices Involving Risk
Chapter 15: Decisions Under Risk and Uncertainty McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 15 Decisions under Risk and Uncertainty.
Yazd University, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Course Title: Machine Learning By: Mohammad Ali Zare Chahooki Bayesian Decision Theory.
Evaluating Non-EU Models Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA.
Integration of sensory modalities
Cox Model With Intermitten and Error-Prone Covariate Observation Yury Gubman PhD thesis in Statistics Supervisors: Prof. David Zucker, Prof. Orly Manor.
Certainty Equivalent and Stochastic Preferences June 2006 FUR 2006, Rome Pavlo Blavatskyy Wolfgang Köhler IEW, University of Zürich.
Lecture 4 on Individual Optimization Risk Aversion
Topic 6: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
Visual Recognition Tutorial
Lecture Presentation Software to accompany Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management Seventh Edition by Frank K. Reilly & Keith C. Brown Chapter.
Multiple Linear Regression Model
Statistics II: An Overview of Statistics. Outline for Statistics II Lecture: SPSS Syntax – Some examples. Normal Distribution Curve. Sampling Distribution.
Simple Linear Regression
AN INTRODUCTION TO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
Chapter 6 An Introduction to Portfolio Management.
Inferences About Process Quality
PY 427 Statistics 1Fall 2006 Kin Ching Kong, Ph.D Lecture 6 Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
Sample Size Determination
Correlation and Regression Analysis
Introduction to Regression Analysis, Chapter 13,
AN INTRODUCTION TO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
Copyright © 2005 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Managerial Economics Thomas Maurice eighth edition Chapter 15.
Estimation and Hypothesis Testing. The Investment Decision What would you like to know? What will be the return on my investment? Not possible PDF for.
Behavior in the loss domain : an experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition Olivier L’Haridon GRID, ESTP-ENSAM.
Version 1.2 Copyright © 2000 by Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of the work should be mailed to:
Portfolio Management-Learning Objective
Lecture Presentation Software to accompany Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management Seventh Edition by Frank K. Reilly & Keith C. Brown Chapter 7.
1 Least squares procedure Inference for least squares lines Simple Linear Regression.
Decision Analysis (cont)
STOCHASTIC DOMINANCE APPROACH TO PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION Nesrin Alptekin Anadolu University, TURKEY.
Decision making Making decisions Optimal decisions Violations of rationality.
Some Background Assumptions Markowitz Portfolio Theory
Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management Chapter 7.
Making decisions about distributions: Introduction to the Null Hypothesis 47:269: Research Methods I Dr. Leonard April 14, 2010.
Education Research 250:205 Writing Chapter 3. Objectives Subjects Instrumentation Procedures Experimental Design Statistical Analysis  Displaying data.
Inferential Statistics 2 Maarten Buis January 11, 2006.
Statistical Decision Making. Almost all problems in statistics can be formulated as a problem of making a decision. That is given some data observed from.
Sequential Expected Utility Theory: Sequential Sampling in Economic Decision Making under Risk Andrea Isoni Andrea Isoni (Warwick) Graham Loomes Graham.
Decision Making Under Uncertainty and Risk 1 By Isuru Manawadu B.Sc in Accounting Sp. (USJP), ACA, AFM
Stochastic choice under risk Pavlo Blavatskyy June 24, 2006.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition LECTURE 07: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD AND BAYESIAN ESTIMATION Objectives: Class-Conditional Density The Multivariate Case General.
Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management First Canadian Edition By Reilly, Brown, Hedges, Chang 6.
Experiments on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods Misread as Evidence of Myopic Loss Aversion Ganna Pogrebna June 30, 2007 Experiments on Risk Taking and.
A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory Pavlo R. Blavatskyy June 2007.
Decision theory under uncertainty
Axiomatic Theory of Probabilistic Decision Making under Risk Pavlo R. Blavatskyy University of Zurich April 21st, 2007.
Review of Statistical Inference Prepared by Vera Tabakova, East Carolina University ECON 4550 Econometrics Memorial University of Newfoundland.
IMPORTANCE OF STATISTICS MR.CHITHRAVEL.V ASST.PROFESSOR ACN.
1 Optimizing Decisions over the Long-term in the Presence of Uncertain Response Edward Kambour.
Chapter 11 – Introduction to Risk Analysis u Why do individuals, companies, and stockholders take risks?
Review of Statistical Inference Prepared by Vera Tabakova, East Carolina University.
Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Testing Mark Dancox Public Health Intelligence Course – Day 3.
Chapter 7: Hypothesis Testing. Learning Objectives Describe the process of hypothesis testing Correctly state hypotheses Distinguish between one-tailed.
NURS 306, Nursing Research Lisa Broughton, MSN, RN, CCRN RESEARCH STATISTICS.
Instructor: R. Makoto 1richard makoto UZ Econ313 Lecture notes.
Bayesian Semi-Parametric Multiple Shrinkage
Chapter 15: Decisions Under Risk and Uncertainty
Introduction to Probability Distributions
Decisions Under Risk and Uncertainty
How many study subjects are required ? (Estimation of Sample size) By Dr.Shaik Shaffi Ahamed Associate Professor Dept. of Family & Community Medicine.
CHAPTER 1 FOUNDATIONS OF FINANCE I: EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY
STATISTICS Random Variables and Distribution Functions
CONCEPTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Risk Chapter 11.
Chapter 15: Decisions Under Risk and Uncertainty
Presentation transcript:

A Perfect Cocktail Recipe: Mixing Decision Theories and Models of Stochastic Choice Ganna Pogrebna June 29, 2007 Blavatskyy, Pavlo and Ganna Pogrebna (2007) “Models of Stochastic Choice and Decision Theories: Why Both are Important for Analyzing Decisions” IEW Working Paper 319

Talk Outline Introduction Television shows Affari Tuoi Deal or No Deal UK Data Estimated Models of Stochastic Choice and Decision Theories Results

Introduction Non-expected utility theories Response to violations of EUT Tested in laboratory experiments Natural experiment in TV shows More representative subject pool Significantly higher incentives Deal or No Deal risky lottery vs. amount for certain high stakes dynamic problem

Affari Tuoi Italian prototype of Deal or No Deal Aired six days a week on RAI Uno All contestants self-select into the show 20 contestants participate in each episode Contestants are randomly assigned sealed boxes, numbered from 1 to 20 Each box contains one of twenty monetary prizes ranging from 0.01 to 500,000 EUR Independent notary company allocates prizes across boxes and seals the boxes

Game Contestants receive one multiple-choice general knowledge question Contestant, who is the first to answer this question correctly, plays the game: Contestant keeps her own box and opens the remaining boxes one by one Once a box is opened, the prize sealed inside is publicly revealed and deleted from the list of possible prizes

List of Possible Prizes (Affari Tuoi ) * Prize 5,000 Euro was replaced with prize 30,000 Euro starting from January 30, 2006

Timing of the game Open 6 boxes Exchange own box for any of 13 remaining unopened boxes? Open 3 boxes “Bank” offers a price for contestant’s box (11 boxes remain unopened) Open 3 boxes Accept price “Bank” offers a price or an exchange (8 boxes remain unopened) Open 3 boxes “Bank” offers a price or an exchange (5 boxes remain unopened) Accept price Open 3 boxes “Bank” offers a price or an exchange (2 boxes remain unopened) Accept price Open 2 boxes Accept price

List of Possible Prizes (DOND UK )

Timing of the game Open 5 boxes “Bank” offers a price (17 unopened boxes left) “Bank” offers a price (14 unopened boxes left) Open 3 boxes Accept price “Bank” offers a price (8 unopened boxes left) Open 3 boxes “Bank” offers a price (5 unopened boxes left) Accept price Open 3 boxes “Bank” offers a price (2 unopened boxes left) Accept price Open 2 boxes Accept price “Bank” offers a price (11 unopened boxes left) Open 3 boxes Accept price Open 3 boxes Accept price

Data 114 Affari Tuoi episodes September 20, 2005 to March 4, Deal or No Deal UK episodes October 31, 2005 to July 22, 2006 Distribution of possible prizes, “bank” offers, prize in own box Gender, age, marital status, region

“Bank” Offers, remarks “Bank” monetary offers are fairly predictable across episodes In early stages of the game, they are smaller than EV of possible prizes As the game progresses, the gap between EV and the monetary offer decreases and often disappears when there are two unopened boxes left. Offers do not depend on prize in contestants box

OLS Regression Results for Affari Tuoi and DOND UK

Models of Stochastic Choice Trembles (Harless and Camerer, 1994) Fechner Model of Homoscedastic Random Errors (Hey and Orme, 1994) Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic Random Errors (Hey, 1995 and Buschena and Zilberman, 2000) Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic and Truncated Random Errors (Blavatskyy, 2007) Random Utility Model (Loomes and Sugden, 1995)

Trembles (Harless and Camerer, 1994) Individuals generally choose among lotteries according to a deterministic decision theory But there is a constant probability that this deterministic choice pattern reverses (as a result of pure tremble). - vector of parameters that characterize the parametric form of a decision theory - utility of a lottery L according to this theory.

Trembles, continued LL of observing N decisions of contestants to reject an offer for a risky lottery, can be written as where is an indicator function i.e. if x is true and if x is false, and is probability of a tremble.

Trembles, continued LL of observing M decisions of contestants to accept offer for a risky lottery, can be written as Parameters and p are estimated to maximize log-likelihood.

Fechner Model of Homoscedastic Random Errors (Hey and Orme, 1994) H&O (1994) estimate a Fechner model of random errors Where a random error distorts the net advantage of one lottery over another (in terms of utility) Net advantage is calculated according to underlying deterministic decision theory The error term is a normally distributed random variable with zero mean and constant standard deviation

Fechner Model of Homoscedastic Random Errors, continued LL of observing N decisions of contestants to reject an offer for a risky lottery, can be written as where is the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of a normal distribution with zero mean and standard deviation.

Fechner Model of Homoscedastic Random Errors, continued LL of observing M decisions of contestants to accept offer for a risky lottery, can be written as Parameters and are estimated to maximize log-likelihood

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic Random Errors (Hey, 1995 and Buschena and Zilberman, 2000) Assume that the error term is heteroscedastic STDEV of errors is higher in certain decision problems, e.g. when lotteries have many possible outcomes In DOND a natural assumption is that contestants, who face risky lotteries with a smaller range of possible outcomes, have a lower volatility of random errors than contestants, who face risky lotteries with a wider range of possible outcomes. We estimate a Fechner model of random errors when the standard deviation of random errors is proportionate to the difference between the utility of the highest outcome and the utility of the lowest outcome of a risky lottery L.

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic Random Errors, continued LL of observing N decisions of contestants to reject an offer for a risky lottery, can be written as

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic Random Errors, continued LL of observing M decisions of contestants to accept offer for a risky lottery, can be written as Parameters and are estimated to maximize log-likelihood.

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic and Truncated Random Errors (Blavatskyy, 2007) Truncate the distribution of random errors so that an individual does not commit transparent errors. E.g. transparent error - an individual values a risky lottery > than its highest possible outcome for certain or when an individual values a risky lottery < than its lowest possible outcome for certain (known as a violation of the internality axiom). In DOND a rational contestant would always reject an offer, which is the highest of the remaining prizes But in Fechner model - a strictly positive probability that a contestant commits such transparent error. To disregard such transparent errors, the distribution of heteroscedastic Fechner errors is truncated from above and from below.

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic and Truncated Random Errors, continued LL of observing N decisions of contestants to reject an offer for a risky lottery, can be written as

Fechner Model of Heteroscedastic and Truncated Random Errors, continued LL of observing M decisions of contestants to accept offer for a risky lottery, can be written as Parameters and are estimated to maximize log-likelihood.

Random Utility Model (Loomes and Sugden, 1995) Individual preferences over lotteries are stochastic and can be represented by a random utility model. Individual preferences over lotteries are captured by a decision theory with a parametric form that is characterized by a vector of parameters. We will assume that one of the parameters is normally distributed with mean and standard deviation and the remaining parameters are non-stochastic.

Random Utility Model, continued Let denote a value of parameter Such that given other parameters, a contestant is exactly indifferent between accepting and rejecting an offer O for a risky lottery L i.e. and for all an individual prefers to accept an offer.

Random Utility Model, continued LL of observing N decisions of contestants to reject an offer for a risky lottery, can be written as

Random Utility Model, continued LL of observing M decisions of contestants to accept offer for a risky lottery, can be written as Parameters, and are estimated to maximize log-likelihood.

7 Decision Theories Embedded in Models of Stochastic Choice Decision theory Investigated in experimental study? Camerer (1989) Starmer (1992) Harless & Camerer (1994) Hey and Orme (1994) Hey (2001) Risk Neutrality  Expected Utility Theory  Skew-Symmetric Bilinear Utility  Regret Theory  Rank-Dependent Expected Utility  Yaari’s Dual Model  Disappointment Aversion Theory 

Risk Neutrality (RN) Maximize expected value (EV) utility of a risky lottery that delivers outcome x i with probability p i is There are no free parameters to be estimated for this decision theory, i.e. vector θ is the empty set

Expected Utility Theory (EUT) utility of lottery is u is a (Bernoulli) utility function over money We will estimate expected utility theory with two utility functions: constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) and expo-power (EP) CRRA utility function is (vector θ is just r ) EP utility function is (vector θ is )

Regret Theory (RT) and Skew-Symmetric Bilinear Utility Theory (SSB) SSB: an individual chooses a risky lottery over a sure amount O if where ψ is a skew-symmetric function SSB coincides with regret theory if ψ is convex (assumption of regret aversion) We will estimate RT (SSB) with function

RT and SSB, continued This function satisfies assumption of regret aversion when δ>1 When δ=1, RT(SBB)=EUT+CRRA When r=0, RT(SBB)=CPT with current offer as a reference point, no loss aversion and linear prob. weighting When δ=1 and r=0 RT(SBB)=RN Vector θ is

Yaari’s Dual Model (YDM) the utility of a risky lottery is probability weighting function vector consists only of one element—the coefficient of the probability weighting function.

Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Theory the utility of a risky lottery is probability weighting function and CRRA utility function vector consists of two elements— CRRA coefficient and the coefficient of the probability weighting function:

Disappointment Aversion Theory (DAT) the utility of a risky lottery is is a number of disappointing outcomes in lottery L is a subjective parameter that captures disappointment preferences vector consists of two elements— CRRA coefficient and the disappointment aversion parameter

Results We estimate static and dynamic decision problem In a static problem, an individual treats all remaining prizes as equiprobable In a dynamic problem, an individual anticipates future bank offers In both problems: Result 1: Estimates of parameters of decision theories differ substantially, depending on which model of stochastic choice the theories are embedded in

Results (goodness of fit) We use Vuong’s likelihood ratio test (and Clarke test) for non-nested models Result 2: For every decision theory, the best fit to the data is obtained when this theory is embedded into a Fechner model with heteroscedastic truncated errors Result 3: For every model of stochastic choice, the worst fit to the data is obtained when this model is combined with RN.

Results, dynamic vs. static Tremble model yields the same LL in static and dynamic problems Random utility model provides a better fit to the data in a dynamic rather than a static decision problem No statistically significant difference for Fechner model Estimated parameters are similar in a dynamic and a static problem but differ significantly across different models of stochastic choice

Results, UK static Decision theories embedded in a tremble model perform significantly worse compared to other models Decision theories embedded in a Fechner model with homoscedastic errors yield similar goodness of fit as in a random utility model Best fit to the data: RDEU embedded into a Fechner model with heteroscedastic errors RDEU and EUT+EP in a truncated Fechner model

Results, AT dynamic In a tremble model, for all theories that have RN as a special case, the estimates are the same as for RN Mass point in „bank“ offers (2.2%=EV) In a dynamic decision problem: standard deviation of stochastic parameters in a random utility model tends to be higher the variance of random errors in a Fechner model tends to be lower Best fit to the data: EUT+EP or RT (SSB) in a truncated Fechner model EUT+EP or RT (SSB) in a random utility model

Results, UK dynamic Tremble model—estimates are the same as in a static case (except for RT(SSB) and DAT) even w/o mass point In a dynamic decision problem: standard deviation of stochastic parameters in a random utility model tends to be higher the variance of random errors in a Fechner model tends to be higher too (expect for YDM) Best fit to the data: RDEU or EUT+EP in a truncated Fechner model RT (SSB) or RDEU in a random utility model

Conclusion Correctly selected model of stochastic choice matters just as much as a correctly selected decision theory Estimated parameters differ a lot Best model of stochastic choice is a truncated Fechner model (and a random utility model in dynamic problems) In this model, EUT performs not significantly worse than non-EUT CRRA gives (nearly always) worse fit than EP