simulation_study.Rmd 31.2 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
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
27
# Note
28

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

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
31
32
# Abstract

33
34
Synthetic choice data from so-called decisions from experience is generated by applying different strategies of sample integration to a series of choice problems between two prospects.
The synthetic data is explored for characteristic choice patterns produced by these strategies under varying structures of the environment (prospect features) and aspects of the sampling- and decision behavior.
35
We start our argument by giving a probability theoretic account of prospects, sampling, and sample integration and derive assumptions about the choice patterns that result from different integration strategies, if applied.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
36
37
38

# Summary

39
Provide short summary of simulation results.
40

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
41
# Introduction
42

43
## Prospects as Probability Spaces
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
44

45
Let a prospect be a *probability space* $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)$ [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950; @georgiiStochasticsIntroductionProbability2008, for an accessible introduction].
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
46

47
$\Omega$ is the *sample space* containing an at most countable set of possible outcomes 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
48

49
50
51
$$\begin{equation}
\omega_i = \{\omega_1, ..., \omega_n\} \in \Omega
\end{equation}$$ 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
52

53
$\mathscr{F}$ is a set of subsets of $\Omega$, i.e., the *event space*
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
54

55
$$\begin{equation}
56
A_i = \{A_1, ..., A_n\} \in \mathscr{F} = \mathscr{P}(\Omega)
57
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
58

59
$\mathscr{P}(\Omega)$ denotes the power set of $\Omega$. 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
60

61
$P$ is a probability mass function that maps $\mathscr{F}$ to the set of real numbers in $[0, 1]$ 
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

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

by assigning each $\omega_i \in \Omega$ a probability of $0 \leq p_i \leq 1$ with $P(\Omega) = 1$.

## Random Processes in Sequential Sampling 

In research on the decision theory, a standard paradigm is the choice between $n \geq 2$ monetary prospects (hereafter indexed with j), where $\omega_{ij} \in \Omega_j$ are monetary outcomes, gains and/or losses respectively.
$P_j$ is then the probability measure which assigns each $\omega_{ij}$ a probability with which they occur. 
73
In such a choice paradigm, agents are asked to evaluate the prospects and build a preference for, i.e., choose either one of them. 
74
75
It is common to make a rather crude distinction between two variants of this evaluation process [cf. @hertwigDescriptionExperienceGap2009]. 
For decisions from description (DfD), agents are provided a full symbolic description of the triples $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_j$.
76
For decision from experience [DfE; e.g., @hertwigDecisionsExperienceEffect2004], the probability triples are not described but must be explored by the means of *sampling*. 
77

78
To provide a formal definition of sampling in risky or uncertain choice, we make use of the mathematical concept of a random variable, a function that models the random processes decision theory is concerned with but which is rarely explicated. 
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Thus, if for each

$$\begin{equation}
\omega_{i} \in \Omega: p(\omega_{i}) \neq 1
\end{equation}$$

we refer to the respective prospect as *"risky"*, where risky describes the fact that if agents would choose the prospect and any of the outcomes $\omega_{i}$ must occur, none of these outcomes will occur with certainty but according to the probability measure $P$. 
86
87
88
It is acceptable to speak of the occurrence of $\omega_{i}$ as the realization of a random variable iff the following conditions a. and b. are met: 

(a) The random variable $X$ is defined as the function 
89
90
91
92
93

$$\begin{equation}
X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F})  \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'})
\end{equation}$$

94
95
where the image $\Omega'$ is the set of possible values $X$ can take and $\mathscr{F'}$ is a set of subsets of $\Omega'$.
I.e., $X$ maps any event $A_i \in \mathscr{F}$ to a subset $A'_i \in \mathscr{F'}$ 
96
97

$$\begin{equation}
98
A'_i \in  \mathscr{F'} \Rightarrow X^{-1}A'_i \in \mathscr{F}
99
100
\end{equation}$$

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
[cf. @georgiiStochasticsIntroductionProbability2008].

(b) The image $X: \Omega \mapsto \Omega'$ must be such that $\omega_i \in \Omega = x_i \in \Omega'$. 

Given conditions a. and b., we denote any realization of a random variable defined on the triple $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)$ as a *single sample* of the respective prospect and any systematic approach to generate a sequence of single samples from $n \geq 2$ prospects as a sampling strategy [see also @hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010]. 
Because for a sufficiently large number of single samples from a given prospect the relative frequencies of $\omega_{i}$ approximate their probabilities in $p_i \in P$, sampling in principle allows to explore a prospect's probability space. 

So far, we used the probability triple of a prospect and conditions a. and b. solely to provide a probability theoretic definition of a single sample.
However, since in the decision literature the (stochastic) occurrence of the raw outcomes in $\Omega$ is often treated as the event of interest, it should be justified to state that stochastic model formulated under a. with the restriction b. is abundantly although implicitly assumed to underlie the evaluation processes of agents. 
We do not contend that this model is not adequate but rather empirically warranted and mathematically convenient, not least because of the measurable nature of the monetary outcomes in $\Omega$. 
However, in line with the literature that deviates from utility models and its derivatives [@heOntologyDecisionModels2020, for an ontology of decision models], we propose that the above restricted model is not the only suitable for describing the random processes agents are interested in, when building a preference between risky prospects, from sampling respectively.

We can construct an alternative stochastic sampling model (hereafter SSM) underlying DfE between risky prospects by starting from the assumption that agents do not make random choices but base their decisions on the information provided by the prospects, which is readily described by their probability triples. 
Thus, we may start by defining a decision variable $D$ 
115
116

$$\begin{equation}
117
D := f((\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_j)
118
119
\end{equation}$$

120
121
122
first without any further assumption on which information of the triple $f$ utilizes and how.
Although in principle many models for $f$ are proposed and tested in the decision literature, in DfE we can restrict the SSM to the case where decisions are based on sequences of single samples generated from the prospect triples.
Since we have already provided a restricted stochastic model of a random variable for this generative process, we can write
123

124
125
126
127
128
$$\begin{equation}
D := f((X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F}) \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'}))_j)
\end{equation}$$

where $\Omega_j = \mathscr{F_j} = \mathscr{F_j'}$. 
129

130
For n prospects we can write the above definition as 
131
132

$$\begin{equation}
133
D := f(X_1, ..., X_j, ..., X_n)
134
135
\end{equation}$$

136
137
138
139
140
which reduces to 

$$\begin{equation}
D := f(X_1, X_2)
\end{equation}$$
141

142
143
144
145
in the case of $n = 2$ prospects, which we now consider further.
Up to this point, we have defined the decision variable $D$ as a function of the random variables associated with the prospects probability spaces.
Since the decision variable $D$ serves as a measure for the evidence for one prospect over the other, we want $f$ to be a measurable function that maps the comparison of $X_1$ and $X_2$ to the measure space $\mathscr{D}$.
Because $X_1$ and $X_2$ are themselves measurable, we write their sample means as a fraction 
146

147
148
149
150
$$\begin{equation}
f: \frac{\overline{X_1}} {\overline{X_2}} = 
\frac{\frac{1}{N_1} \sum_{i=1}^{N_1} \omega_{i1}}{\frac{1}{N_2} \sum_{i=1}^{N_2} \omega_{i2}} \mapsto \mathscr{D}
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
151

152
153
154
155
The decision variable $D$ is thus a function of the comparative measure $\frac{\overline{X_1}} {\overline{X_2}}$ of the random variables both defined on the probability spaces of their respective prospects. 
We assume that the elements of $\mathscr{D}$ are the natural numbers $\{0, 1\}$, indicating that the ordinal comparison of $\overline{X_1}$ and $\overline{X_2}$ either provides evidence for a given prospect $\{1\}$ or not $\{0\}$.  
Thus, $f$ itself can be defined as a random variable that maps the sample space $\Omega = \{\frac{\overline{X_1}} {\overline{X_2}}\}$ to the measurable space $\mathscr{D} = \{0, 1\}$.
However, since we are not interested in the measure $\frac{\overline{X_1}} {\overline{X_2}} = \mathbb{R}$ itself but in the ordinal comparison of $X_1$ and $X_2$, we introduce the event space $\mathscr{F} = \{\frac{\overline{X_1}}  {\overline{X_2}} > 0, \frac{\overline{X_1}}  {\overline{X_2}} \leq 0\}$ 
156

157
158
159
$$\begin{equation}
f: (\Omega, \mathscr{F})  \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{D})
\end{equation}$$
160
161


linushof's avatar
linushof committed
162
163
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
164
## Test set
165

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
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.
175

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
176
177
178
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
179
180
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
181
## Model Parameters
182

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
183
**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
184
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
185

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
186
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
187
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
188

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
189
190
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.
191

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
192
```{r message=FALSE}
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
# 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
201
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
202
203
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
204
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
205

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
206
# Results
207

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
208
209
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.
210
211

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
212
213
214
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
215
216
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
217
218
219
220
221
```{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
222

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
223
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
224

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
225
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
226

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
227
228
229
230
231
232
```{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")
233
234
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
235
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.
236

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
237
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
238

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
239
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
240

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
241
242
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
243
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
244
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
245

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
246
247
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
248
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
249
250
251
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
252
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
253
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
254
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
255
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
256
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
257
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
258

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
259
260
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
261
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
262
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
263

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
264
265
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
266
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
267
268
269
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
270
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
271
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
272
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
273
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
274
  theme_minimal()
275
276
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
277
### Switching probability (s)
278

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
279
280
281
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
282

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
283
284
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
285
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
286
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
287

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
288
289
290
291
292
293
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() + 
294
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
295
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
296
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
297
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
298
299
300
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
301
302
303
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
304

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
305
306
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
307
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
308
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
309

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
310
311
312
313
314
315
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() + 
316
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
317
318
319
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
320
321
322
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
323
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
324

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
325
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
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
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
338
339
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
340
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
341

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
342
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
343

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
344
345
346
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
347
```
348

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
349
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
350
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
351

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
352
353
354
355
356
357
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
358
359
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
360
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
361
362
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
363
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
364

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
```{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() 
379
380
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
```{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
396

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
397
398
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
399
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
  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
415
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
  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() 
427
428
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
429
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
430

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
431
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
432

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
433
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
434

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
```{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() 
```
450

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
451
452
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
453
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
454
455
456
457
458
459
  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() + 
460
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
461
462
463
464
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
465
466
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
467
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
468
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
469
470
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.
471

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
472
473
474
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
475
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.
476

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
### 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.

501
#### Piecewise Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535

```{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)) + 
536
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
537
538
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
539
540
541
542
543
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
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
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
  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() 
```

620
#### Comprehensive Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
621
622
623
624

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
625

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
```{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", 
652
653
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
654
655
656
657
658
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
659
660
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
661
662
663
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
664
665
666
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
675
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
676
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
677
678
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
686
  filter(s >= .7) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
726
727
728
729
730
731
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
  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
757

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
758
# References