manuscript.Rmd 34.6 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 prospects and a rough stochastic sampling model for 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 function forms and parameter values that describe the resulting decision behavior. 
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
## Sampling 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
In (2), $x \equiv \omega$ means that the realization of a random variable $X(\omega) = x$ is numerically equivalent to its pre-image $\omega$.  
84
85
Given conditions (1) and (2), we denote any observation of $\omega$ as a *"single sample"*, or realization, of a random variable defined on a prospect and the act of generating a sequence of single samples in discrete time as *"sequential 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 same prospect [cf. @bernoulliArsConjectandiOpus1713].
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
86
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
Consider now a choice between prospects $1, ..., k$.
89
To construct a stochastic sampling model for DfE, we assume that agents base their decision on the information related to these prospects and define a decision variable as a function of the latter:
90
91

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

96
Now, since in DfE no symbolic descriptions of the prospects are provided, the model must be restricted to the case where decisions are based on sequences of single samples originating from the respective prospects:
97

98
$$\begin{equation}
99
D := f(X_{i1}, ..., X_{ik}) 
100
\; ,
101
102
\end{equation}$$

103
where $i = 1, ..., N$ denotes a sequence of length $N$ of random variables that are iid.  
104

105
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 theory and empirical protocols. 
106
Taking the case of different sampling and decision strategies previously assumed to play a role in DfE, the following section demonstrates how such assumptions can be explicated in a stochastic model that builds on the sampling approach outlined so far.  
107

108
## A Stochastic Sampling Model Capturing Differences in Sampling and Decision Strategies  
109

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
110
111
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).
112
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]. 
113
114

We now consider choices between two prospects and the assumptions of Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] in more detail to build the respective stochastic sampling model for DfE.
115
116
117

Let $X$ and $Y$ be random variables defined on the prospects $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_X$ and $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_Y$. 

118
119
Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010] suggest that any two sample sequences $X_i$ and $Y_i$ are compared by their means. 
Let thus $C = \mathbb{R}$ be the set of all possible outcomes of such a mean comparison for given sequence lengths $N_X$ and $N_Y$ and 
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

$$\begin{equation}
\mathscr{C} = \left\{ \{c \in C: \overline{X}_{N_X} - \overline{Y}_{N_Y} > 0\}, \{ c \in C: \overline{X}_{N_X} - \overline{Y}_{N_Y} \leq 0\}
\right\}
\end{equation}$$

be a set of subsets of $C$, indicating that comparisons of prospects on the ordinal (rather than on the metric) scale are of primary interest. 
127
128
The outcome of such an ordinal comparison can be regarded as evidence for or against a prospect and the number of wins over a series of independent ordinal comparisons as accumulated evidence. 
To integrate the concept of evidence accumulation into the current model, we let $D$ be a measurable function that maps the possible outcomes of a mean comparison in $C$ onto a measure space $C' = \{0,1\}$, with $0$ ($1$) indicating a lost (won) comparison:
129

130
$$\begin{equation}
131
D(c \in C) = 
132
  \begin{cases}
133
    1 & \text{for} & \{c \in C: (\overline{X}_{N_X} - \overline{Y}_{N_Y} > 0) \in \mathscr{C} \} \\
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
134
    0 & \text{else}. 
135
  \end{cases} 
136
\end{equation}$$
137

138
It can be shown that for fixed sequence lengths $N_X$ and $N_Y$, a sequence $D_i = D_1, ..., D_n$ is a Bernoulli process following the binomial distribution
139
140

$$\begin{equation}
141
D \sim B\left( p \left(\overline{X}_{N_X} - \overline{Y}_{N_Y} > 0\right), n\right) \; ,
142
143
\end{equation}$$

144
145
where $p$ is the probability of $X$ winning a single mean comparison and $n$ is the number of comparisons (see [Appendix]).
However, although $p$ can in principle be determined, it becomes intractable with increasing elements in $\Omega$ and growing sequence lengths. 
146

147
## Predicting Choice Behavior in DfE 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178

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 

$$\begin{equation}
179
180
P\left(\lim_{N_X \to \infty} \overline{X}_{N_X} = E(X) \right) = 
P\left(\lim_{N_Y \to \infty} \overline{Y}_{N_Y} = E(Y) \right) = 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
1 \; ,
\end{equation}$$

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:

201
Given that $N_X$ and $N_Y$ are set to 1, $D$ follows the binomial distribution 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
202

203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
$$\begin{equation}
B(k \, | \, p_X, \mathbb{N}) \; ,
\end{equation}$$

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 

$$\begin{equation}
\left\{\frac{\overline{X}_{N_X = 1}} {\overline{Y}_{N_Y = 1}} \right\}^{\mathbb{N}} =
\left\{\frac{x_i \in \Omega'_X} {y_j \in \Omega'_Y}\right\}^{\mathbb{N}}
\end{equation}$$
217

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
218
219
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
220
## Test set
221

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
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.
231

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
232
233
234
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
235
236
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
237
## Model Parameters
238

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
239
**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
240
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
241

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
242
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
243
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
244

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
245
246
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.
247

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
248
```{r message=FALSE}
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
# 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
257
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
258
259
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
260
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
261

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
262
# Results
263

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
264
265
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.
266
267

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
268
269
270
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
271
272
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
273
274
275
276
277
```{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
278

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
279
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
280

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
281
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
282

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
283
284
285
286
287
288
```{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")
289
290
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
291
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.
292

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
293
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
294

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
295
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
296

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
297
298
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
299
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
300
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
301

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
302
303
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
304
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
305
306
307
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
308
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
309
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
310
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
311
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
312
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
313
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
314

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
315
316
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
317
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
318
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
319

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
320
321
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
322
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
323
324
325
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
326
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
327
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
328
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
329
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
330
  theme_minimal()
331
332
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
333
### Switching probability (s)
334

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
335
336
337
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
338

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
339
340
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
341
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
342
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
343

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
344
345
346
347
348
349
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() + 
350
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
351
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
352
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
353
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
354
355
356
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
357
358
359
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
360

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
361
362
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
363
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
364
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
365

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
366
367
368
369
370
371
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() + 
372
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
373
374
375
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
376
377
378
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
379
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
380

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
381
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
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
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
394
395
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
396
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
397

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
398
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
399

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
400
401
402
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
403
```
404

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
405
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
406
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
407

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
408
409
410
411
412
413
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
414
415
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
416
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
417
418
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
419
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
420

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
```{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() 
435
436
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
```{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
452

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
453
454
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
455
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
  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
471
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
  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() 
483
484
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
485
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
486

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
487
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
488

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
489
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
490

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
```{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() 
```
506

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
507
508
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
509
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
510
511
512
513
514
515
  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() + 
516
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
517
518
519
520
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
521
522
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
523
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
524
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
525
526
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.
527

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
528
529
530
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
531
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.
532

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
### 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())
546
estimates <- read_csv("data/estimates/estimates_cpt_pooled_goldstein-einhorn-87.csv", col_types = cols)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
```

#### 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.

557
#### Piecewise Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591

```{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)) + 
592
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
593
594
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
595
596
597
598
599
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
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
  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() 
```

676
#### Comprehensive Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
677
678
679
680

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
681

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
```{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", 
708
709
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
710
711
712
713
714
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
715
716
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
717
718
719
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
720
721
722
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
731
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
732
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
733
734
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
742
  filter(s >= .7) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
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
  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
813

814
815
816
817
# Discussion 

# Conclusion

818
819
# Appendix 

820
Let  
821
822

$$\begin{equation}
823
X_1, ..., X_{N_X}
824
825
826
827
828
\end{equation}$$

and 

$$\begin{equation}
829
Y_1, ..., Y_{N_Y} 
830
831
\end{equation}$$

832
be sequences of random variables that are iid.
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
863
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
864
# References
865