Savage's subjective expected utility model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In decision theory, Savage's subjective expected utility model (also known as Savage's framework, Savage's axioms, or Savage's representation theorem) is a formalization of subjective expected utility (SEU) developed by Leonard J. Savage in his 1954 book The Foundations of Statistics,[1] based on previous work by Ramsey,[2] von Neumann[3] and de Finetti.[4]

Savage's model concerns with deriving a subjective probability distribution and a utility function such that an agent's choice under uncertainty can be represented via expected-utility maximization. His contributions to the theory of SEU consist of formalizing a framework under which such problem is well-posed, and deriving conditions for its positive solution.

Primitives and problem

[edit | edit source]

Savage's framework posits the following primitives to represent an agent's choice under uncertainty:[1]

  • A set of states of the world Ω, of which only one ωΩ is true. The agent does not know the true ω, so Ω represents something about which the agent is uncertain.
  • A set of consequences X: consequences are the objects from which the agent derives utility.
  • A set of acts F: acts are functions f:ΩX which map unknown states of the world ωΩ to tangible consequences xX.
  • A preference relation over acts in F: we write fg to represent the scenario where, when only able to choose between f,gF, the agent (weakly) prefers to choose act f. The strict preference fg means that fg but it does not hold that gf.

The model thus deals with conditions over the primitives (Ω,X,F,)—in particular, over preferences —such that one can represent the agent's preferences via expected-utility with respect to some subjective probability over the states Ω: i.e., there exists a subjective probability distribution pΔ(Ω) and a utility function u:X such that

fg𝔼ωp[u(f(ω))]𝔼ωp[u(g(ω))],

where 𝔼ωp[u(f(ω))]:=Ωu(f(ω))dp(ω).

The idea of the problem is to find conditions under which the agent can be thought of choosing among acts fF as if he considered only 1) his subjective probability of each state ωΩ and 2) the utility he derives from consequence f(ω) given at each state.

Axioms

[edit | edit source]

Savage posits the following axioms regarding :[1][5]

  • P1 (Preference relation) : the relation is complete (for all f,gF, it's true that fg or gf) and transitive.
  • P2 (Sure-thing Principle)[nb 1]: for any acts f,gF, let fEg be the act that gives consequence f(ω) if ωE and g(ω) if ωE. Then for any event EΩ and any acts f,g,h,hF, the following holds:
fEhgEhfEhgEh.

In words: if you prefer act f to act g whether the event E happens or not, then it does not matter the consequence when E does not happen.

An event EΩ is nonnull if the agent has preferences over consequences when E happens: i.e., there exist f,g,hF such that fEhgEh.

  • P3 (Monotonicity in consequences): let fx and gy be constant acts. Then fg if and only if fEhgEh for all nonnull events E.
  • P4 (Independence of beliefs from tastes): for all events E,EΩ and constant acts fx, gy, fx, gy such that fg and fg, it holds that
fEgfEgf'Egf'Eg.
  • P5 (Non-triviality): there exist acts f,fF such that ff.
  • P6 (Continuity in events): For all acts f,g,hF such that fg, there is a finite partition (Ei)i=1n of Ω such that fgEih and hEifg for all in.

The final axiom is more technical, and of importance only when X is infinite. For any EΩ, let E be the restriction of to E. For any act fF and state ωΩ, let fωf(ω) be the constant act with value f(ω).

  • P7: For all acts f,g,F and events EΩ, we have
fEgω ωEfEg,
fωEg ωEfEg.

Savage's representation theorem

[edit | edit source]

Theorem: Given an environment (Ω,X,F,) as defined above with X finite, the following are equivalent:

1) satisfies axioms P1-P6.

2) there exists a non-atomic, finitely additive probability measure pΔ(Ω) defined on 2Ω and a nonconstant function u:X such that, for all f,gF,

fg𝔼ωp[u(f(ω))]𝔼ωp[u(g(ω))].

For infinite X, one needs axiom P7. This inclusion makes P3 redundant.[8] Furthermore, in both cases, the probability measure p is unique and the function u is unique up to positive linear transformations.[1][6]

See also

[edit | edit source]

Notes

[edit | edit source]
  1. ^ Referring to axiom P2 as the sure-thing principle is the most common usage of the term,[6] but Savage originally referred to the concept as P2 in conjunction with P3 and P7,[1] and some authors refer to it just as P7.[7]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ^ a b c d e Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  2. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  3. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  4. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  5. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  6. ^ a b Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  7. ^ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  8. ^ Hartmann, Lorenz. “Savage's P3 is Redundant.” Econometrica, vol. 88, .no 1, Econometric Society, 2020, pp. 203-205, https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA17428