×

Decision analysis under ambiguity. (English) Zbl 1346.91039

Summary: In selecting the preferred course of action, decision makers are often uncertain about one or more probabilities of interest. The experimental literature has ascertained that this uncertainty (ambiguity) might affect decision makers’ preferences. Then, the decision maker might wish to incorporate ambiguity aversion in the analysis. We investigate the modeling ambiguity attitudes in the solution of decision analysis problems through functionals well-established in the decision theory literature. We obtain the multiple-event problems for subjective expected utility, smooth ambiguity and maximin decision makers. This allows us to establish the conditions under which these alternative decision makers face equivalent problems. Results for certainty equivalents and risk premia in the presence of both risk and ambiguity aversion are obtained. A recent generalization of the classical Arrow-Pratt quadratic approximation allows us to quantify the portions of a premium due to risk – and to ambiguity-aversion. The numerical implementation of the objective functions is addressed, showing that all functionals can be estimated at no additional burden through Monte Carlo simulation. The well known Carter Racing case study is addressed quantitatively to demonstrate the findings.

MSC:

91B06 Decision theory
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Anscombe, F. J.; Aumann, R. J., A definition of subjective probability, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 1, 199-205 (1963) · Zbl 0114.07204
[2] Apostolakis, G. E., The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems, Science, 250, 4986, 1359-1364 (1990)
[3] Apostolakis, G. E.; Kaplan, S., Pitfalls in risk calculations, Reliability Engineering, 2, 135-145 (1981)
[4] Aspinall, W., A route to more tractable expert advice, Nature, 463, 21, 294-295 (2010)
[5] Ben-Tal, A.; Bertsimas, D.; Brown, D. B., A soft robust model for optimization under ambiguity, Operations Research, 58, 4, 1220-1234 (2010) · Zbl 1228.90060
[6] Borgonovo, E.; Tonoli, F., Decision-newtork polynomials and the sensitivity of decision support models, European Journal of Operational Research, 239, 2, 490-503 (2014) · Zbl 1339.91031
[7] Brittain, J.; Sitkin, S., Facts, figures, and organizational decisions: Carter racing and quantitative analysis in the organizational behavior classroom, Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14, 62-81 (1989)
[8] Cerreia-Vioglio, S.; Maccheroni, F.; Marinacci, M.; Montrucchio, L., Classical subjective expected utility, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 6754-6759 (2013) · Zbl 1292.91066
[9] Chick, S. E., Input distribution selection for simulation experiments: Accounting for input uncertainty, Operations Research, 49, 5, 744-758 (2001)
[10] Clemen, R. T., Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis (1997), Duxbury Press: Duxbury Press Pacific Grove, California, USA
[11] Cooke, R. M., Experts in uncertainty: Opinion and subjective probability in science (1991), Oxford University Press
[12] Davis, D. B.; Paté-Cornell, M., A challenge to the compound lottery axiom: A two-stage normative structure and comparison to other theories, Theory and Decision, 37, 1, 267-309 (1994) · Zbl 0839.90001
[13] Dillon, R. L.; Paté-Cornell, M. E.; Guikema, S. D., Programmatic risk analysis for critical engineering systems under tight resource constraints, Operations Research, 51, 3, 354-367 (2003) · Zbl 1163.90456
[14] Efron, B.; Gong, G., A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation, The American Statistician, 37, 1, 36-48 (1983)
[15] Ellsberg, D., Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 4, 643-669 (1961) · Zbl 1280.91045
[16] Ergin, H.; Gul, F., A theory of subjective compound lotteries, Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 3, 899-929 (2009) · Zbl 1162.91331
[17] Felli, J. C.; Hazen, G. B., Javelin diagrams: A graphical tool for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Decision Analysis, 1, 2, 93-107 (2004)
[18] Fishburn, P. C., Foundations of decision analysis: Along the way, Management Science, 35, 4, 387-405 (1989) · Zbl 0667.90011
[19] Gilboa, I.; Marinacci, M., Ambiguity and the Bayesian Paradigm, (Acemoglu, D.; Arellano, M.; Dekel, E. (2013), Cambridge University Press.)
[20] Gilboa, I.; Schmeidler, D., Maximin expected utility with non-unique prior, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141-153 (1989) · Zbl 0675.90012
[21] Gneiting, T. G.; Raftery, A. E., Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 477, 359-377. (2007) · Zbl 1284.62093
[22] Hansen, L. P., Beliefs, doubts and learning: Valuing macroeconomic risk, American Economic Review, 97, 2, 1-30 (2007)
[23] Hazen, G. B.; Huang, M., Parametric sensitivity analysis using large-sample approximate Bayesian posterior distributions, Decision Analysis, 3, 4, 208-219 (2006)
[24] Hogarth, R. M.; Kunreuther, H., Pricing insurance and warranties: Ambiguity and correlated risks, Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance: Theory, 17, 35-60 (1992)
[25] Howard, R. A., Decision analysis: Applied decision theory, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on operations research (1966), Wiley-Interscience: Wiley-Interscience New York · Zbl 0142.15103
[26] Howard, R. A., Decision analysis: Practice and promise, Management Science, 34, 6, 679-695 (1988)
[27] Howard, R. A., Uncertainty about probability: A decision analysis perspective, Risk Analysis, 8, 1, 91-98 (1988)
[28] Howard, R. A., The foundations of decision analysis revisited, (Edwards, W.; Miles, Jr., R. F.; von Winterfeldt, D., Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (2007), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press NY, USA), 32-56
[29] Jose, V. R.R.; Nau, R. F.; Winkler, R. L., Scoring rules, generalized entropy, and utility maximization, Operations Research, 56, 5, 1146-1157 (2008) · Zbl 1167.91389
[30] Ju, N.; Miao, J., No title, Econometrica, 80, 2, 559-591 (2012) · Zbl 1274.91200
[31] Kirkwood, C. W., An algebraic approach to formulating and solving large models for sequential decisions under uncertainty, Management Science, 397, 900-913 (1993) · Zbl 0785.90003
[33] Klibanoff, P.; Marinacci, M.; Mukerji, S., A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity, Econometrica, 73, 6, 1849-1892 (2005) · Zbl 1151.91372
[34] Klibanoff, P.; Marinacci, M.; Mukerji, S., Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences, Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 3, 930-976 (2009) · Zbl 1160.91324
[35] Maccheroni, F.; Marinacci, M.; Ruffino, D., Alpha as ambiguity: Robust mean-variance portfolio analysis, Econometrica, 81, 1075-1113 (2013) · Zbl 1274.91147
[36] Martz, H.; Waller, R., Bayesian reliability analysis (1991), Krieger Publishing Company: Krieger Publishing Company Malabar, Florida · Zbl 0763.62053
[37] Millner, A.; Dietz, S.; Heal, G. M., Scientific ambiguity and climate policy, Environmental and Resource Economics, 55, 1, 21-46 (2013)
[38] Nau, R., Should scoring rules be ‘effective’, Management Science, 31, 527-535 (1985) · Zbl 0608.60041
[39] Nau, R., Uncertainty aversion with second-order utilities and probabilities, Management Science, 52, 1, 136-145 (2006) · Zbl 1232.91224
[40] Nau, R., Extension of the subjective expected utility model, (Edwards, W.; Miles, Jr., R. F.; von Winterfeldt, D., Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (2007), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press NY, USA), 253-277
[41] Owen, A. B., Halton sequences avoid the origin, SIAM Review, 48, 3, 487-503 (2006) · Zbl 1114.65003
[42] Papazoglou, I., Mathematical foundations of event trees, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 61, 169-183 (1998)
[43] Park, J.; Darwiche, A., Complexity results and approximation strategies for MAP explanations, Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 21, 101-133 (2004) · Zbl 1080.68689
[44] Pearl, J., On probability intervals *, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2, 211-216 (1988)
[45] Pratt, J. W., Risk aversion in the small and in the large, Econometrica, 32, 122-136 (1964) · Zbl 0132.13906
[46] Savage, L. J., The foundations of statistics (1954), Wiley and Sons · Zbl 0121.13603
[47] Segal, U., The Ellsberg paradox and risk aversion: An anticipated utility approach, International Economic Review, 28, 175-202 (1987) · Zbl 0659.90010
[48] Shachter, R. D., Model building with belief networks and influence diagrams, (Edwards, W.; Miles, Jr., R. F.; Winterfeldt, D.v., Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (2007), Cambridge University Press), 177-201
[49] Smith, J. E.; von Winterfeldt, D., Decision analysis in management science, Management Science, 50, 5, 561-574 (2004)
[50] Stecher, J.; Shields, T.; Dickhaut, J., Generating ambiguity in the laboratory, Management Science, 57, 4, 705-712 (2011)
[51] Stern, N.; Peters, S.; Bakhshi, V.; Bowen, A.; Cameron, C.; Catovsky, S.; Crane, D.; Cruickshank, S.; Dietz, S.; Edmonson, N.; Garbett, S.-L.; Hamid, L.; Hoffman, G.; Ingram, D.; Jones, B.; Patmore, N.; Radcliffe, H.; Sathiyarajah, R.; Stock, M.; Taylor, C.; Vernon, T.; Wanjie, H.; Zenghelis, D., Stern review: The economics of climate change (2006), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
[52] Trautmann, S. T.; Vieider, F. M.; Wakker, P. P., Preference reversals for ambiguity aversion, Management Science, 57, 7, 1320-1333 (2011)
[53] Wakker, P. P., Uncertainty, The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 8, 428-439 (2008)
[54] Wald, A., Statistical decision functions (1950), John Wiley and Sons: John Wiley and Sons New York, USA · Zbl 0040.36402
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.