manuscript.Rmd 35.5 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

36
37
A probability theoretic definition of sampling and a rough stochastic model of the random process underlying decisions from experience are proposed.
It is demonstrated how the stochastic 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
...

44
## Random Processes in Sequential Sampling 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
45

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

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

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

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

62
$P$ is a probability mass function  
63
64

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

68
that assigns each outcome a probability of $0 \leq p(\omega_i) \leq 1$ with $P(\Omega) = 1$ [cf. @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 rather crude distinction between two variants of this evaluation process [cf. @hertwigDescriptionexperienceGapRisky2009]. 
72
73
74
75
76
For decisions from description (DfD), agents are provided a full symbolic description of the prospects.
For decisions from experience [DfE; e.g., @hertwigDecisionsExperienceEffect2004], the prospects 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 all $p(\omega_{i}) \neq 1$.
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. 
It is acceptable to speak of the occurrence of $\omega_{i}$ as a realization of a random variable $X$ defined on a prospect iff the following conditions A and B are met: 
77

78
A) $X$ is the measurable function 
79
80

$$\begin{equation}
81
82
X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F})  \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'}) 
\; , 
83
84
\end{equation}$$

85
86
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 $A'_i \in \mathscr{F'}$ has a pre-image  
87
88

$$\begin{equation}
89
X^{-1}A'_i \in \mathscr{F} \; ,
90
91
\end{equation}$$

92
which is the set $\{\omega_i \in \Omega: X(\omega_i) \in A'_i\}$ [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950, p. 21].
93

94
B) The mapping is such that $X(\omega_i) = \omega_i$. 
95

96
Given conditions A and B, we denote any occurrence of $\omega_i$ as a *single sample*, or realization, of a random variable defined on a prospect and any systematic approach to generate, in discrete time, a sequence of single samples that originate from multiple prospects as a *sampling strategy* [see also @hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010]. 
97

98
## A Stochastical Sampling Model for DfE
99

100
Consider a choice between $1, ...,j,..., n$ prospects.
101
102
To construct a rough stochastic sampling model (hereafter SSM) of the random process underlying DfE, it is assumed that agents base their decisions on the information provided by the prospects, which is in principle fully described by their probability triples. 
Thus, a decision variable 
103
104

$$\begin{equation}
105
D := f((\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_j)
106
107
\end{equation}$$

108
109
is defined. 
Since in DfE no symbolic descriptions of the triples are provided, the model is restricted to the case where decisions are based on sequences of single samples generated from the triples:
110

111
$$\begin{equation}
112
113
D := f((X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F}) \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'}))_j) = f(X_1, ..., X_j, ..., X_n) 
\; ,
114
115
\end{equation}$$

116
where $\Omega_j = \Omega'_j$. 
117

118
119
120
121
122
Note that the decision variable $D$ is defined as a function $f$ of the random variables associated with the prospects' probability spaces, where $f$ can operate on any quantitative measure, or moment, related to these random variables.
Since decision models differ in the form of $f$ and the measures the latter utilizes [@heOntologyDecisionModels2020, for an ontology of decision models], we take the stance that these choices should be informed by psychological or other theory and empirical protocols. 
For what do these choices mean? 
They reflect the assumptions about the kind of information agents process and the way they do, not to mention the question of whether they are capable of doing so.   
In the following section, it is demonstrated how such assumptions about the processing strategies that agents may apply in DfE can be captured by the SSM.   
123

124
## Integrating sampling and decision strategies into the SSM
125

126
127
128
129
Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] discussed a potential link between the sampling and decision strategies of agents in DfE, i.e., a systematic relation between the pattern according to which sequences of single samples are generated and the mechanism of integrating and evaluating these sample sequences to arrive at a decision. 
Specifically, the authors suppose that frequent switching between prospects in the sampling phase translates to a round-wise decision strategy, for which the evaluation process is separated into multiple rounds of ordinal comparisons between single samples (or small chunks thereof), such that the unit of the final evaluation are round wins rather than raw outcomes.   
In contrast, infrequent switching is supposed to translate to a decision strategy, for which only a single ordinal comparison of the summaries across all samples of the respective prospects is conducted [@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010, see Figure 1].
The authors assume that these distinct sampling and decision strategies lead to characteristic patterns in decision behavior and may serve as an additional explanation for the many empirical protocols which indicate that DfE differ from DfD [@wulffMetaanalyticReviewTwo2018, for a meta-analytic review; but see @foxDecisionsExperienceSampling2006]. 
130

131
In the following, choices between two prospects are considered to integrate the assumptions about the sampling and decision strategies from above into the SSM. 
132

133
134
135
Let $X$ and $Y$ be random variables related to the prospects with the probability spaces $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_X$ and $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_Y$.
By definition, the decision variable $D$ should quantify the accumulated evidence for one prospect over the other, which Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] describe in units of won comparisons.
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:
136

137
138
139
140
141
142
$$\begin{equation}
D:= f: S \mapsto S' 
\; .
\end{equation}$$

Since Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] assume that comparisons of prospects are based on sample means, $S$ is the set
143
144

$$\begin{equation}
145
146
147
148
S = 
  \left\{
    \frac{\frac{1}{N_X} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_X} x_i}
    {\frac{1}{N_Y} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_Y} y_j} 
149
  \right\} 
150
151
  = 
  \left\{
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
152
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
153
  \right\}
154
  \; ,
155
156
\end{equation}$$

157
where $x_i$ and $y_j$ are single samples and $N_X$ and $N_Y$ denotes the number of single samples within a comparison. 
158
To indicate that the comparison of prospects on the ordinal scale is of primary interest, we define 
159

160
$$\begin{equation}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
161
\mathscr{D} = \left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0, \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} \leq 0 \right\} 
162
\end{equation}$$
163

164
as a set of subsets of $S$, i.e., the *event space*, and the decision variable as the measure 
165

166
$$\begin{equation}
167
D:= f: (S, \mathscr{D}) \mapsto S'
168
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
169

170
with the mapping
171

172
$$\begin{equation}
173
174
D:= 
  \left(
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
175
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
176
177
178
179
  \right) 
  \in S : 
  f
  \left(
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
180
    \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y}}
181
182
  \right) 
  =
183
  \begin{cases}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
184
185
    1 & \text{if} & \frac{\overline{X}_{N_X}}{\overline{Y}_{N_Y}} > 0 \in \mathscr{D} \\
    0 & \text{else}. 
186
  \end{cases} 
187
\end{equation}$$
188

189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
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
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
## Predicting Choices From the SSM

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 

$$\begin{equation}
229
230
P\left(\lim_{N_X \to \infty} \overline{X}_{N_X} = E(X) \right) = 
P\left(\lim_{N_Y \to \infty} \overline{Y}_{N_Y} = E(Y) \right) = 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
1 \; ,
\end{equation}$$

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:

251
Given that $N_X$ and $N_Y$ are set to 1, $D$ follows the binomial distribution 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
252

253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
$$\begin{equation}
B(k \, | \, p_X, \mathbb{N}) \; ,
\end{equation}$$

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 

$$\begin{equation}
\left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X = 1}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y = 1}} \right\}^{\mathbb{N}} =
\left\{\frac{x_i \in \Omega'_X} {y_j \in \Omega'_Y}\right\}^{\mathbb{N}}
\end{equation}$$
267

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
268
269
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
270
## Test set
271

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
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.
281

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
282
283
284
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
285
286
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
287
## Model Parameters
288

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
289
**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
290
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
291

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
292
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
293
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
294

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
295
296
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.
297

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
298
```{r message=FALSE}
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
# 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
307
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
308
309
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
310
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
311

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
312
# Results
313

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
314
315
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.
316
317

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
318
319
320
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
321
322
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
323
324
325
326
327
```{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
328

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
329
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
330

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
331
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
332

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
333
334
335
336
337
338
```{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")
339
340
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
341
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.
342

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
343
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
344

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
345
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
346

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
347
348
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
349
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
350
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
351

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
352
353
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
354
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
355
356
357
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
358
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
359
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
360
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
361
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
362
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
363
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
364

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
365
366
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
367
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
368
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
369

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
370
371
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
372
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
373
374
375
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
376
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
377
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
378
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
379
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
380
  theme_minimal()
381
382
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
383
### Switching probability (s)
384

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
385
386
387
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
388

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
389
390
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
391
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
392
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
393

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
394
395
396
397
398
399
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() + 
400
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
401
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
402
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
403
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
404
405
406
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
407
408
409
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
410

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
411
412
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
413
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
414
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
415

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
416
417
418
419
420
421
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() + 
422
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
423
424
425
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
426
427
428
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
429
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
430

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
431
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
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
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
444
445
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
446
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
447

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
448
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
449

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
450
451
452
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
453
```
454

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
455
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
456
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
457

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
458
459
460
461
462
463
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
464
465
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
466
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
467
468
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
469
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
470

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
```{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() 
485
486
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
```{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
502

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
503
504
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
505
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
  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
521
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
  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() 
533
534
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
535
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
536

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
537
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
538

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
539
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
540

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
```{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() 
```
556

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
557
558
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
559
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
560
561
562
563
564
565
  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() + 
566
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
567
568
569
570
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
571
572
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
573
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
574
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
575
576
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.
577

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
578
579
580
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
581
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.
582

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
### 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.

607
#### Piecewise Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641

```{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)) + 
642
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
643
644
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
645
646
647
648
649
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
  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() 
```

726
#### Comprehensive Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
727
728
729
730

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
731

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
```{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", 
758
759
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
760
761
762
763
764
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
765
766
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
767
768
769
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
770
771
772
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
781
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
782
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
783
784
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
792
  filter(s >= .7) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
  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
863

864
865
866
867
# Discussion 

# Conclusion

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
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
# 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
913
# References
914