manuscript.Rmd 34.9 KB
Newer Older
1
---
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
2
3
title: 'Sampling Strategies in Decisions from Experience'
author: "Linus Hof, Thorsten Pachur, Veronika Zilker"
4
5
6
7
8
9
bibliography: sampling-strategies-in-dfe.bib
output:
  html_document:
    code_folding: hide
    toc: yes
    toc_float: yes
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
10
    number_sections: no
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
11
12
13
  pdf_document:
    toc: yes
csl: apa.csl
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
14
15
16
editor_options: 
  markdown: 
    wrap: sentence
17
18
---

19
20
```{r}
# load packages
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
21
22
pacman::p_load(repro,
               tidyverse,
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
23
24
               knitr, 
               viridis)
25
26
```

27
# Author Note
28

29
This document was created from the commit with the hash `r repro::current_hash()`. 
30

31
32
- Add information on how to reproduce the project.
- Add contact.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
33

34
# Abstract
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
35

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
36
37
A rough stochastic model of the random processes underlying decisions from experience is proposed.
It is demonstrated how the model can be used a) to explicate assumptions about the sampling and decision strategies that agents may apply and b) to derive predictions about the resulting decision behavior in terms of function forms and parameter values.
38
Synthetic choice data is simulated and modeled in cumulative prospect theory to test these predictions. 
39

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
40
# Introduction
41

42
43
...

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
44
## Random Processes in Decisions from Experience 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
45

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
46
In research on the decision theory, a standard paradigm is the choice between at least two (monetary) prospects.
47
48
Let a prospect be a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)$.
$\Omega$ is the sample space 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
49

50
$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
51
\Omega = \{\omega_1, ..., \omega_n\}
52
\end{equation}$$ 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
53

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
54
containing a finite set of possible outcomes $\omega$, monetary gains and/or losses respectively. 
55
$\mathscr{F}$ is the set of all possible subsets of $\Omega$: 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
56

57
$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
58
\mathscr{F} = \{A_1, A_2, ...\} = \mathscr{P}(\Omega) 
59
\; .
60
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
61

62
$P$ is a probability mass function  
63
64

$$\begin{equation}
65
P: \mathscr{F} \mapsto [0,1] 
66
67
\end{equation}$$

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
68
that assigns each outcome $\omega$ a probability $0 < p(\omega) \leq 1$ with $P(\Omega) = 1$ [ @kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950, pp. 2-3].
69

70
In such a choice paradigm, agents are asked to evaluate the prospects and build a preference for either one of them. 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
71
It is common to make a distinction between two variants of this evaluation process [cf. @hertwigDescriptionexperienceGapRisky2009]. 
72
For decisions from description (DfD), agents are provided a full symbolic description of the prospects.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
73
74
75
For decisions from experience [DfE; e.g., @hertwigDecisionsExperienceEffect2004], prospects are not described but must be explored by the means of sampling. 

To provide a formal definition of sampling in risky choice, we make use of the mathematical concept of a random variable and start by referring to a prospect as *"risky"* in the case where $p(\omega) \neq 1$ for all $\omega \in \Omega$.
76
Here, risky describes the fact that if agents would choose a prospect and any of its outcomes in $\Omega$ must occur, none of these outcomes will occur with certainty. 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
77
It is acceptable to speak of the occurrence of $\omega$ as a realization of a random variable $X$ defined on a prospect iff the following conditions (1) and (2) are met: 
78

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
79
(1) $X$ is a measurable function $$\begin{equation} X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F})  \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'}) \; , \end{equation}$$ where $\Omega'$ is a set of real numbered values $X$ can take and $\mathscr{F'}$ is a set of subsets of $\Omega'$. I.e., $\Omega$ maps into $\Omega'$ such that correspondingly each subset $A' \in \mathscr{F'}$ has a pre-image $X^{-1}A' \in \mathscr{F}$, which is the set $\{\omega \in \Omega: X(\omega) \in A'\}$ [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950, p. 21].
80

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
81
(2) The mapping is such that $X(\omega) = x \equiv \omega$. 
82

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
83
84
85
86
In (2), $x \equiv \omega$ means that the realization of a random variable $X(\omega) = x$ is numerically equivalent to its pre-image $\omega$.  
Given conditions (1) and (2), we denote any occurrence of $\omega$ as a *"single sample"*, or realization, of a random variable defined on a prospect and the process of generating a sequence of single samples as *"sampling"*. 
Note that, since random variables defined on the same prospect are independent and identically distributed (iid), the weak law of the large number applies to the relative frequency of occurrence of an outcome $\omega$ in a sequence of single samples originating from the respective prospect [cf. @bernoulliArsConjectandiOpus1713].
Thus, long sample sequences in principle allow to obtain the same information about a prospect by sampling as by symbolic description.
87

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
88
89
Consider now a choice between prospects $1, ..., k$.
To construct a stochastic sampling model (hereafter SSM) of the random processes underlying DfE, we assume that agents base their decision on the information related to these prospects and define a decision variable as a function
90
91

$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
92
93
D:= f((\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_1, ..., (\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_k)
\;.
94
95
\end{equation}$$

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
96
Since in DfE no symbolic descriptions of the prospects are provided, we restrict the model to the case where decisions are based on sequences of single samples originating from the respective prospects:
97

98
$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
99
D := f(x_{i1}, ..., x_{ik}) \quad \text{for} \; x \equiv{\omega}
100
\; ,
101
102
\end{equation}$$

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
103
where $i = 1, ..., N$ denotes a sequence of length $N$ of random variables that are iid and $x$ their realizations. 
104

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
105
106
Concerning the form of $f$ and the measures it utilizes, it is quite proper to say that they reflect our assumptions about the exact kind of information agents process and the way they do and that these choices should be informed by psychological or other theory [@heOntologyDecisionModels2020, for an ontology of decision models] and empirical protocols. 
In the following section, it is demonstrated how such assumptions about the processing strategies that agents may apply in DfE can be integrated into the SSM.   
107

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
108
## Example: Formulating Sampling and Decision Strategies as Stochastic Processes
109

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
110
111
112
113
Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] discussed a potential link between sampling and decision strategies in DfE. 
Specifically, the authors suppose that if single samples originating from different prospects are generated in direct succession (piecewise sampling), the evaluation of prospects is based on multiple ordinal comparisons of single samples (round-wise decisions).
In contrast, if single samples originating from the same prospect are generated in direct succession (comprehensive sampling), it is supposed that the evaluation of prospects is based on a single ordinal comparison of long sequences of single samples [summary decisions; @hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010, Figure 1 for a graphical summary]. 
We now consider choices between two prospects to integrate these assumptions into the SSM. 
114

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
115
116
117
Let $X$ and $Y$ be random variables defined on the prospects $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_X$ and $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_Y$ and 
$X(\omega \in \Omega_X) = x \equiv \omega$ and $Y(\omega \in \Omega_Y) = y \equiv \omega$ be single samples.
By definition, the decision variable $D$ should quantify the accumulated evidence for one prospect over the other, which is described in units of won comparisons.
118

119
Hence, $f$ should map the possible outcomes of a comparison of quantitative measures related to $X$ and $Y$, hereafter the sampling space $S = \mathbb{R}$, to a measure space $S' = \{0,1\}$, indicating the possible outcomes of a single comparison:
120

121
122
123
124
125
126
$$\begin{equation}
D:= f: S \mapsto S' 
\; .
\end{equation}$$

Since Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] assume that comparisons of prospects are based on sample means, $S$ is the set
127
128

$$\begin{equation}
129
130
131
S = 
  \left\{
    \frac{\frac{1}{N_X} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_X} x_i}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
132
    {\frac{1}{N_Y} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_Y} y_i} 
133
  \right\} 
134
135
  = 
  \left\{
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
136
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
137
  \right\}
138
  \; ,
139
140
\end{equation}$$

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
141
where $N_X$ and $N_Y$ denotes the number of single samples within a comparison. 
142
To indicate that the comparison of prospects on the ordinal scale is of primary interest, we define 
143

144
$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
145
\mathscr{D} = \left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0, \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} \leq 0 \right\} 
146
\end{equation}$$
147

148
as a set of subsets of $S$, i.e., the *event space*, and the decision variable as the measure 
149

150
$$\begin{equation}
151
D:= f: (S, \mathscr{D}) \mapsto S'
152
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
153

154
with the mapping
155

156
$$\begin{equation}
157
158
D:= 
  \left(
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
159
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
160
161
162
163
  \right) 
  \in S : 
  f
  \left(
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
164
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
165
166
  \right) 
  =
167
  \begin{cases}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
168
169
    1 & \text{if} & \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0 \in \mathscr{D} \\
    0 & \text{else}. 
170
  \end{cases} 
171
\end{equation}$$
172

173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
It can be shown that for the case $N_X = N_Y = 1$, $D$ is a random variable that follows the Bernoulli distribution

$$\begin{equation}
D \sim B\left( p \left( \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X = 1}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y = 1}} > 0\right), n\right) \; ,
\end{equation}$$

where $n$ is the number of comparisons (see *Proof 1* in Appendix). 

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
181
### Predicting Choices From the SSM
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212

Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] proposed the two different sampling strategies in combination with the respective decision strategies, i.e., piecewise sampling and round-wise comparison vs. comprehensive sampling and summary comparison, as an explanation for different choice patterns in DfE. 
How does the current version of the SSM support this proposition? 
Given prospects $X$ and $Y$, the sample spaces $S = \left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}\right\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ can be varied by changes on three parameters, i.e., the number of comparisons $\mathbb{N}$ and the sample sizes $N_X$ and $N_Y$ on which these comparisons are based.
First, only considering the pure cases formulated by the above authors, the following restrictions are put the parameters:

$$\begin{equation}
\mathbb{N}
  =
  \begin{cases}
    1 & \text{if} & \text{Summary} \\ 
    \geq 1 & \text{if} & \text{Round-wise}  
  \end{cases}\\
\end{equation}$$
 
and 

$$\begin{equation}
N_X \, \text{and} \, N_Y
  =
  \begin{cases}
    \geq 1 & \text{if} & \text{Summary} \\ 
    1 & \text{if} & \text{Round-wise}  
  \end{cases}\\
\end{equation}$$

For the summary strategy, the following prediction is obtained: 

Given that 

$$\begin{equation}
213
214
P\left(\lim_{N_X \to \infty} \overline{X}_{N_X} = E(X) \right) = 
P\left(\lim_{N_Y \to \infty} \overline{Y}_{N_Y} = E(Y) \right) = 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
1 \; ,
\end{equation}$$

we obtain that

$$\begin{equation}
\left(
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
\right)
\in S : 
P\left(\lim_{N_X \to \infty} \lim_{N_Y \to \infty} \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} = 
\frac{E(X)} {E(Y)}
\right ) =
1 \; ,
\end{equation}$$

I.e., for the summary strategy, we assume that for increasing sample sizes $N_X$ and $N_Y$, the prospect with the larger expected value is chosen almost surely.  

For the round-wise strategy, the following prediction is obtained:

235
Given that $N_X$ and $N_Y$ are set to 1, $D$ follows the binomial distribution 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
236

237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
$$\begin{equation}
B(k \, | \, p_X, \mathbb{N}) \; ,
\end{equation}$$

where $p$ is the probability that a single sample of prospect $X$ is larger than a single sample of prospect $Y$, $\mathbb{N}$ is the number of comparisons and $k$ is the number of times $x \in X$ is larger than $y \in Y$. 

*Proof.*

For $N_X = N_Y = 1$, the sample space is 

$$\begin{equation}
\left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X = 1}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y = 1}} \right\}^{\mathbb{N}} =
\left\{\frac{x_i \in \Omega'_X} {y_j \in \Omega'_Y}\right\}^{\mathbb{N}}
\end{equation}$$
251

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
252
253
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
254
## Test set
255

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
Under each condition, i.e., strategy-parameter combinations, all gambles are played by 100 synthetic agents.
We test a set of gambles, in which one of the prospects contains a safe outcome and the other two risky outcomes (*safe-risky gambles*).
Therefore, 60 gambles from an initial set of 10,000 are sampled.
Both outcomes and probabilities are drawn from uniform distributions, ranging from 0 to 20 for outcomes and from .01 to .99 for probabilities of the lower risky outcomes $p_{low}$.
The probabilities of the higher risky outcomes are $1-p_{low}$, respectively.
To omit dominant prospects, safe outcomes fall between both risky outcomes.
The table below contains the test set of 60 gambles.
Sampling of gambles was stratified, randomly drawing an equal number of 20 gambles with no, an attractive, and an unattractive rare outcome.
Risky outcomes are considered *"rare"* if their probability is $p < .2$ and *"attractive"* (*"unattractive"*) if they are higher (lower) than the safe outcome.
265

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
266
267
268
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
269
270
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
271
## Model Parameters
272

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
273
**Switching probability** $s$ is the probability with which agents draw the following single sample from the prospect they did not get their most recent single sample from.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
274
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
275

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
276
The **boundary type** is either the minimum value any prospect's sample statistic must reach (absolute) or the minimum value for the difference of these statistics (relative).
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
277
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
278

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
279
280
For comprehensive integration, the **boundary value** $a$ is varied between 15 to 75 in increments of 15.
For piecewise integration $a$ is varied between 1 to 5 in increments of 1.
281

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
282
```{r message=FALSE}
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
# read choice data 
cols <- list(.default = col_double(),
             strategy = col_factor(),
             boundary = col_factor(),
             gamble = col_factor(),
             rare = col_factor(),
             agent = col_factor(),
             choice = col_factor())
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
291
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
292
293
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
294
In sum, 2 (strategies) x 60 (gambles) x 100 (agents) x 100 (parameter combinations) = `r nrow(choices)` choices are simulated.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
295

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
296
# Results
297

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
298
299
Because we are not interested in deviations from normative choice due to sampling artifacts (e.g., ceiling effects produced by low boundaries), we remove trials in which only one prospect was attended.
In addition, we use relative frequencies of sampled outcomes rather than 'a priori' probabilities to compare actual against normative choice behavior.
300
301

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
302
303
304
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
305
306
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
307
308
309
310
311
```{r eval = FALSE}
# remove choices where not all outcomes were sampled
choices <- choices %>% 
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp) | a_p1_exp == 0 | a_p2_exp == 0))
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
312

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
313
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
314

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
315
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
316

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
317
318
319
320
321
322
```{r message=FALSE}
samples <- choices %>% 
  group_by(strategy, s, boundary, a) %>% 
  summarise(n_med = median(n_sample))
samples_piecewise <- samples %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
samples_comprehensive <- samples %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
323
324
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
325
The median sample sizes generated by different parameter combinations ranged from `r min(samples_piecewise$n_med)` to `r max(samples_piecewise$n_med)` for piecewise integration and `r min(samples_comprehensive$n_med)` to `r max(samples_comprehensive$n_med)` for comprehensive integration.
326

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
327
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
328

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
329
As evidence is accumulated sequentially, relative boundaries and large boundary values naturally lead to larger sample sizes, irrespective of the integration strategy.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
330

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
331
332
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
333
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
334
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
335

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
336
337
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
338
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
339
340
341
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
342
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
343
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
344
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
345
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
346
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
347
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
348

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
349
350
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
351
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
352
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
353

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
354
355
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
356
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
357
358
359
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
360
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
361
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
362
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
363
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
364
  theme_minimal()
365
366
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
367
### Switching probability (s)
368

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
369
370
371
For piecewise integration, there is an inverse relationship between switching probability and sample size.
I.e., the lower s, the less frequent prospects are compared and thus, boundaries are only approached with larger sample sizes.
This effect is particularly pronounced for low probabilities such that the increase in sample size accelerates as switching probability decreases.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
372

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
373
374
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
375
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
376
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
377

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
378
379
380
381
382
383
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(s, n_med, color = s)) + 
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
384
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
385
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
386
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
387
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
388
389
390
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
391
392
393
For comprehensive integration, boundary types differ in the effects of switching probability.
For absolute boundaries, switching probability has no apparent effect on sample size as the distance of a given prospect to its absolute boundary is not changed by switching to (and sampling from) the other prospect.
For relative boundaries, however, samples sizes increase with switching probability.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
394

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
395
396
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
397
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
398
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
399

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
400
401
402
403
404
405
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(s, n_med, color = s)) + 
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
406
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
407
408
409
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
410
411
412
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
413
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
414

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
415
Below, in extension to Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010], the interplay of integration strategies, gamble features, and model parameters in their effects on choice behavior in general and their contribution to underweighting of rare events in particular is investigated.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
We apply two definitions of underweighting of rare events: Considering false response rates, we define underweighting such that the rarity of an attractive (unattractive) outcome leads to choose the safe (risky) prospect although the risky (safe) prospect has a higher expected value.

```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates <- choices %>% 
  mutate(ev_ratio_exp = round(a_ev_exp/b_ev_exp, 2), 
         norm = case_when(ev_ratio_exp > 1 ~ "A", ev_ratio_exp < 1 ~ "B")) %>% 
  filter(!is.na(norm)) %>% # exclude trials with normative indifferent options
  group_by(strategy, s, boundary, a, rare, norm, choice) %>% # group correct and incorrect responses
  summarise(n = n()) %>% # absolute numbers 
  mutate(rate = round(n/sum(n), 2), # response rates 
         type = case_when(norm == "A" & choice == "B" ~ "false safe", norm == "B" & choice == "A" ~ "false risky")) %>% 
  filter(!is.na(type)) # remove correct responses
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
428
429
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
430
Considering the parameters of Prelec's [-@prelecProbabilityWeightingFunction1998] implementation of the weighting function [CPT; cf. @tverskyAdvancesProspectTheory1992], underweighting is reflected by decisions weights estimated to be smaller than the corresponding objective probabilities.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
431

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
432
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
433

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
434
435
436
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
437
```
438

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
439
The false response rates generated by different parameter combinations ranged from `r min(fr_rates_piecewise$rate)` to `r max(fr_rates_piecewise$rate)` for piecewise integration and from `r min(fr_rates_comprehensive$rate)` to `r max(fr_rates_comprehensive$rate)` for comprehensive integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
440
However, false response rates vary considerably as a function of rare events, indicating that their presence and attractiveness are large determinants of false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
441

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
442
443
444
445
446
447
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
448
449
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
450
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
451
452
Consistent with our - somewhat rough - definition of underweighting, the rate of false risky responses is generally higher, if the unattractive outcome of the risky prospect is rare (top panel).
Conversely, if the attractive outcome of the risky prospect is rare, the rate of false safe responses is generally higher (bottom panel).
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
453
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
454

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(1, 5, 1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration | Absolute Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
469
470
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise", boundary == "relative") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(1, 5, 1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration | Relative Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
486

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
487
488
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
489
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(15, 75, 15)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration | Absolute Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
505
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(15, 75, 15)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration | Relative Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
517
518
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
519
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
520

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
521
As for both piecewise and comprehensive integration the differences between boundary types are rather minor and of magnitude than of qualitative pattern, the remaining analyses of false response rates are summarized across absolute and relative boundaries.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
522

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
523
Below, the $s$ and $a$ parameter are considered as additional sources of variation in the false response pattern above and beyond the interplay of integration strategies and the rarity and attractiveness of outcomes.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
524

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(s, rate, color = a)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_jitter(size = 2) + 
  scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
540

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
541
542
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
543
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
544
545
546
547
548
549
  ggplot(aes(s, rate, color = a)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_jitter(size = 2) + 
  scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_color_viridis() + 
550
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
551
552
553
554
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
555
556
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
557
For piecewise integration, switching probability is naturally related to the size of the samples on which the round-wise comparisons of prospects are based on, with low values of $s$ indicating large samples and vice versa.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
558
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
559
560
I.e., the larger the switching probability, the smaller the round-wise sample size and the probability of experiencing a rare event within a given round.
Because round-wise comparisons are independent of each other and binomial distributions within a given round are skewed for small samples and outcome probabilities [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950], increasing boundary values do not reverse but rather amplify this relation.
561

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
562
563
564
For comprehensive integration, switching probability is negatively related to false response rates, i.e., an increase in $s$ is associated with decreasing false response rates.
This relation, however, may be the result of an artificial interaction between the $s$ and $a$ parameter.
Precisely, in the current algorithmic implementation of sampling with a comprehensive integration mechanism, decreasing switching probabilities cause comparisons of prospects based on increasingly unequal sample sizes immediately after switching prospects.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
565
Consequentially, reaching (low) boundaries is rather a function of switching probability and associated sample sizes than of actual evidence for a given prospect over the other.
566

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
### Cumulative Prospect Theory

In the following, we examine the possible relations between the parameters of the *choice-generating* sampling models and the *choice-describing* cumulative prospect theory.

For each distinct strategy-parameter combination, we ran 20 chains of 40,000 iterations each, after a warm-up period of 1000 samples.
To reduce potential autocorrelation during the sampling process, we only kept every 20th sample (thinning).

```{r}
# read CPT data
cols <- list(.default = col_double(),
             strategy = col_factor(),
             boundary = col_factor(),
             parameter = col_factor())
estimates <- read_csv("data/estimates/estimates_cpt_pooled.csv", col_types = cols)
```

#### Convergence

```{r}
gel_92 <- max(estimates$Rhat) # get largest scale reduction factor (Gelman & Rubin, 1992) 
```

The potential scale reduction factor $\hat{R}$ was $n \leq$ `r round(gel_92, 3)` for all estimates, indicating good convergence.

591
#### Piecewise Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625

```{r}
# generate subset of all strategy-parameter combinations (rows) and their parameters (columns)
curves_cpt <- estimates %>% 
  select(strategy, s, boundary, a, parameter, mean) %>% 
  pivot_wider(names_from = parameter, values_from = mean)
```

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.

```{r}

cpt_curves_piecewise <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  expand_grid(p = seq(0, 1, .1)) %>% # add vector of objective probabilities
  mutate(w = round(exp(-delta*(-log(p))^gamma), 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
626
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
627
628
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
629
630
631
632
633
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

##### Value function v(x)

```{r}

cpt_curves_piecewise <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  expand_grid(x = seq(0, 20, 2)) %>% # add vector of objective outcomes
  mutate(v = round(x^alpha, 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

710
#### Comprehensive Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
711
712
713
714

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
715

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
```{r}

cpt_curves_comprehensive <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
  expand_grid(p = seq(0, 1, .1)) %>% # add vector of objective probabilities
  mutate(w = round(exp(-delta*(-log(p))^gamma), 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
742
743
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
744
745
746
747
748
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
749
750
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
751
752
753
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
754
755
756
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
765
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
766
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
767
768
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
776
  filter(s >= .7) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

##### Value function v(x)

```{r}

cpt_curves_comprehensive <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
  expand_grid(x = seq(0, 20, 2)) %>% # add vector of objective outcomes
  mutate(v = round(x^alpha, 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)


# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
847

848
849
850
851
# Discussion 

# Conclusion

852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
# Appendix 

Let $X_n$ and $Y_m$ be independent and discrete random variables of the sequences

$$\begin{equation}
X_1, ..., X_n, ..., X_{N_X}
\end{equation}$$

and 

$$\begin{equation}
Y_1, ..., Y_m, ..., Y_{N_Y} \; .
\end{equation}$$

Then

$$\begin{equation}
P\left(\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0 \right) = 
P\left(\frac{\frac{1}{N_X}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N_X} (X(\omega_i) = A'_X \in \mathscr{F'}_X)_n} 
{\frac{1}{N_Y}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{N_Y} (Y(\omega_j) = A'_Y \in \mathscr{F'}_Y)_m} > 0 \right)
\end{equation}$$

is the probability that the quotient of the mean of both sequences takes on a value larger $0$.
Given the sample sizes $N_X = N_Y = 1$, the equation reduces to 

$$\begin{equation}
P\left(\frac{X(\omega_i \in \Omega_X) = A'_X \in \mathscr{F'}_X}{Y(\omega_j \in \Omega_Y) = A'_Y \in \mathscr{F'}_Y} > 0 \right) \; ,
\end{equation}$$

which is the sum across all joint probabilities $p(\omega_i \cap \omega_j)$ for which the above inequation holds:.


$$\begin{equation}
D:= 
  f
  \left(
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
  \right) 
  =
  \begin{cases}
    1 & \text{if} & \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0 \in \mathscr{D} \\
    0 & \text{else}. 
  \end{cases} 
\end{equation}$$

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
897
# References
898