-
Regret-based budgeted decision rules under severe uncertainty
Authors:
Nawapon Nakharutai,
Sébastien Destercke,
Matthias C. M. Troffaes
Abstract:
One way to make decisions under uncertainty is to select an optimal option from a possible range of options, by maximizing the expected utilities derived from a probability model. However, under severe uncertainty, identifying precise probabilities is hard. For this reason, imprecise probability models uncertainty through convex sets of probabilities, and considers decision rules that can return m…
▽ More
One way to make decisions under uncertainty is to select an optimal option from a possible range of options, by maximizing the expected utilities derived from a probability model. However, under severe uncertainty, identifying precise probabilities is hard. For this reason, imprecise probability models uncertainty through convex sets of probabilities, and considers decision rules that can return multiple options to reflect insufficient information. Many well-founded decision rules have been studied in the past, but none of those standard rules are able to control the number of returned alternatives. This can be a problem for large decision problems, due to the cognitive burden decision makers have to face when presented with a large number of alternatives. Our contribution proposes regret-based ideas to construct new decision rules which return a bounded number of options, where the limit on the number of options is set in advance by the decision maker as an expression of their cognitive limitation. We also study their consistency and numerical behaviour.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Improving and benchmarking of algorithms for $Γ$-maximin, $Γ$-maximax and interval dominance
Authors:
Nawapon Nakharutai,
Matthias C. M. Troffaes,
Camila C. S. Caiado
Abstract:
$Γ$-maximin, $Γ…
▽ More
$Γ$-maximin, $Γ$-maximax and inteval dominance are familiar decision criteria for making decisions under severe uncertainty, when probability distributions can only be partially identified. One can apply these three criteria by solving sequences of linear programs. In this study, we present new algorithms for these criteria and compare their performance to existing standard algorithms. Specifically, we use efficient ways, based on previous work, to find common initial feasible points for these algorithms. Exploiting these initial feasible points, we develop early stop** criteria to determine whether gambles are either $Γ$-maximin, $Γ$-maximax or interval dominant. We observe that the primal-dual interior point method benefits considerably from these improvements. In our simulation, we find that our proposed algorithms outperform the standard algorithms when the size of the domain of lower previsions is less or equal to the sizes of decisions and outcomes. However, our proposed algorithms do not outperform the standard algorithms in the case that the size of the domain of lower previsions is much larger than the sizes of decisions and outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 23 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
Improving and benchmarking of algorithms for decision making with lower previsions
Authors:
Nawapon Nakharutai,
Matthias C. M. Troffaes,
Camila C. S. Caiado
Abstract:
Maximality, interval dominance, and E-admissibility are three well-known criteria for decision making under severe uncertainty using lower previsions. We present a new fast algorithm for finding maximal gambles. We compare its performance to existing algorithms, one proposed by Troffaes and Hable (2014), and one by Jansen, Augustin, and Schollmeyer (2017). To do so, we develop a new method for gen…
▽ More
Maximality, interval dominance, and E-admissibility are three well-known criteria for decision making under severe uncertainty using lower previsions. We present a new fast algorithm for finding maximal gambles. We compare its performance to existing algorithms, one proposed by Troffaes and Hable (2014), and one by Jansen, Augustin, and Schollmeyer (2017). To do so, we develop a new method for generating random decision problems with pre-specified ratios of maximal and interval dominant gambles. Based on earlier work, we present efficient ways to find common feasible starting points in these algorithms. We then exploit these feasible starting points to develop early stop** criteria for the primal-dual interior point method, further improving efficiency. We find that the primal-dual interior point method works best. We also investigate the use of interval dominance to eliminate non-maximal gambles. This can make the problem smaller, and we observe that this benefits Jansen et al.'s algorithm, but perhaps surprisingly, not the other two algorithms. We find that our algorithm, without using interval dominance, outperforms all other algorithms in all scenarios in our benchmarking.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Evaluating betting odds and free coupons using desirability
Authors:
Nawapon Nakharutai,
Camila C. S. Caiado,
Matthias C. M. Troffaes
Abstract:
In the UK betting market, bookmakers often offer a free coupon to new customers. These free coupons allow the customer to place extra bets, at lower risk, in combination with the usual betting odds. We are interested in whether a customer can exploit these free coupons in order to make a sure gain, and if so, how the customer can achieve this. To answer this question, we evaluate the odds and free…
▽ More
In the UK betting market, bookmakers often offer a free coupon to new customers. These free coupons allow the customer to place extra bets, at lower risk, in combination with the usual betting odds. We are interested in whether a customer can exploit these free coupons in order to make a sure gain, and if so, how the customer can achieve this. To answer this question, we evaluate the odds and free coupons as a set of desirable gambles for the bookmaker. We show that we can use the Choquet integral to check whether this set of desirable gambles incurs sure loss for the bookmaker, and hence, results in a sure gain for the customer. In the latter case, we also show how a customer can determine the combination of bets that make the best possible gain, based on complementary slackness. As an illustration, we look at some actual betting odds in the market and find that, without free coupons, the set of desirable gambles derived from those odds avoids sure loss. However, with free coupons, we identify some combinations of bets that customers could place in order to make a guaranteed gain.
△ Less
Submitted 7 January, 2019;
originally announced January 2019.
-
Improved linear programming methods for checking avoiding sure loss
Authors:
Nawapon Nakharutai,
Matthias C. M. Troffaes,
Camila C. S. Caiado
Abstract:
We review the simplex method and two interior-point methods (the affine scaling and the primal-dual) for solving linear programming problems for checking avoiding sure loss, and propose novel improvements. We exploit the structure of these problems to reduce their size. We also present an extra stop** criterion, and direct ways to calculate feasible starting points in almost all cases. For bench…
▽ More
We review the simplex method and two interior-point methods (the affine scaling and the primal-dual) for solving linear programming problems for checking avoiding sure loss, and propose novel improvements. We exploit the structure of these problems to reduce their size. We also present an extra stop** criterion, and direct ways to calculate feasible starting points in almost all cases. For benchmarking, we present algorithms for generating random sets of desirable gambles that either avoid or do not avoid sure loss. We test our improvements on these linear programming methods by measuring the computational time on these generated sets. We assess the relative performance of the three methods as a function of the number of desirable gambles and the number of outcomes. Overall, the affine scaling and primal-dual methods benefit from the improvements, and they both outperform the simplex method in most scenarios. We conclude that the simplex method is not a good choice for checking avoiding sure loss. If problems are small, then there is no tangible difference in performance between all methods. For large problems, our improved primal-dual method performs at least three times faster than any of the other methods.
△ Less
Submitted 9 August, 2018;
originally announced August 2018.
