Decision Making Under Uncertainty

14.123 Microeconomic Theory III Muha met Yildiz

Risk v. uncertainty

1. Risk = DM has to choo se from alternatives

whose consequences are unknown

But the prob ability of each consequence is given

2. Uncertainty = DM has to choose from alternatives

whose consequences are unknown

the probability of conseq uences is n o t given

DM has to f o rm his own beliefs

3. Von Neumann- Mor genstern: Ri sk

4. Goal:

1. Conve r t unc ertainty to risk by formal izing and eliciting belief s

2. Apply Von Neuman n Mo rgenstern a nalysis

Decision Making Under Risk S ummary

C = Finit e set of consequences

X = P = lotteries (prob. distributions on C )

Expected Utility Representation:

p f q u ( c ) p ( c ) u ( c ) q ( c )

c C

c C

Theorem: EU Representation continuous preference relation with Independence Axiom :

ap +(1- a ) r aq +(1- a ) r p q .

Road map

1. Acts, States, Consequences

2. Expected Utility Maximiza tion R epresentation

3. Sure- T hing Principl e

4. Conditional Preferences

5. Eliciting Qualitative Beliefs

6. Representing Qualitative Beliefs with Probability

7. Expected Utility Maximiza tion C haracterization

8. Anscombe & Aumann trick: use indifference between uncertain and risky events

Model

C = Finit e set of c onsequence s

S = A set of st at e s (uncountable)

Act: A mapping f : S C

X = F := C S

DM cares about consequences, chooses an act, without knowing the state

E x ampl e: Should I take my umbrella?

E x ampl e: A game from a player’s point of view

Expected-Utility Representation

= a relation on F

Expected-Utility Representation :

A probabil i ty distribution p on S with expectation E

A VNM utility function u : C R such that

f g U ( f ) E [ u f ] E [ u g ] U ( g )

Nec e ssa ry Cond itio ns:

P1 : is a preference relation

Sure-Thing Principle

If

f g wh en DM kno w s B S occurs,

f g wh en DM kno w s S\B occurs,

Then f g

when DM doesn’t know whether B occurs or not.

P2 : Let f , f , g , g and B be such that

f ( s ) = f ( s ) and g ( s ) = g ( s ) at each s B

f ( s ) = g ( s ) and f ( s ) = g ( s ) at each s S\B . Then, f g f g .

Sure-Thing Principle P icture

C

B

S\B

S

ST P

Conditional Preference

For any acts f and h and e v ent B ,

f

h

f s if s B

| B

s

h ( s ) otherwise

Definition : f g given B if f f | B g | B .

h h

Sure-Thing Principle = conditio nal pr eference is well-defined

Informal Sur e -Thing Prin cip l e, formally:

f g given B : f | B g | B .

f f

f g given S \ B : f | S \ B g | S \ B .

g

g

Trans i tivity: f = f | f g | f = f | S \ g g | S \ g = g .

B B B

B

B is null f ~ g given B for all f , g F.

P3: For any x , x C , f , f F with f x a nd f ′≡ x , and an y non-null B,

f f given B x x .

ST PP

Eliciting Beliefs

For an y A S and x , x C , define f A x,x by

f

x , x '

A

s

x

x ' otherwise

if s A

Definition: For any A , B S ,

A B f A x,x f B x,x

for some x , x C with x x .

A B means A is at least as likel y as B .

P4: There exist x , x C such t hat x x .

P5: For all A , B S , x , x , y , y C with x x and y y ,

f A x,x f B x,x f A y,y f B y,y .

Qualitative Probability

Definition: A r e la t i o n between the events is said to b e a qualit ative probability iff

1. is complete and transitive;

2. for any B , C , D S with B D = C D = , B C B D C D ;

3. B ≽∅ for each B S , and S ≻∅ .

Fact: “A t least as likely as” r elation above is a qualitative probability relation.

Quantifying qualitative probability

For any probability measure p and relation on events, p is a probability r epresentation of iff

B C p ( B ) p ( C ) B , C S .

If has a probability representation, then is a qualitative probability.

S is infinitely divisible under iff n , S has a partition

{ D 1 1 , …, D n n } s uch that D 1 1 ~ ~ D n n .

P6: For a n y x C , g , h F with g h , S has a partition

{ D ¹,…, D } s.t.

g h i x and g i x h

for all i n w h e r e h i x ( s ) = x if s D i and h (s) otherwise.

P6 implies that S is infinitely divisible under .

Probability Representation

Theor em: Under P1- P 6, has a unique probability representation p .

Proof:

For any event B and n , define

k ( n , B ) = max { r | B D 1 1 D n r }

Define p ( B ) = lim n k ( n , B )/2 n .

B C k ( n , B ) k ( n , C ) n p ( B ) p ( C ).

P6’: If B C , S has a partition { D ¹,…, D } s.t. B C

D i for each i n .

B C p ( B ) > p ( C ).

Uniqueness: k ( n , B )/2 n p ( B ) < ( k ( n , B )+1 ) /2

Expected Utility Maximization Characterization

Theorem: Assume that C is finite. Under P1-P6, there exist a utility functio n u : C R and a probabilit y measure p on S such that f , g F ,

M IT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu

1 4.123 Microeconomic Theory III

Spring 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms .