Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji
description
Transcript of Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji
![Page 1: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Teoria podejmowania decyzji
Relacja preferencji
![Page 2: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
• Binarny relations – properties• Pre-orders and orders, relation of rational
preferences• Strict preference and indifference relation
Agenda
![Page 3: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
• Preferences:– capability of making comparisons– capability of deciding, which of two alternatives is better/is not worse
• Mathematically – binary relations in the set of decision alternatives:– X – decision alternatives– X2 – all pairs of decision alternatives– RX2 – binary relation in X, selected subset of ordered pairs of
elements of X– if x is in relation R with y, then we write xRy or (x,y)R
Today – another approach to decision making
![Page 4: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Examples of relations:– „Being a parent of” is a binary relation on a set of
human beings– „Being a hat” is a binary relation on a set of
objects– „x+y=z” is 3-ary relation on the set of numbers– „x is better than y more than x’ is better than y’ ”
is a 4-ary relation on the set of alternatives.
![Page 5: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
• Example– X={1,2,3,4}– R – a relation denoting „is smaller than”– xRy – means „x is smaller than y”
• Thus:– (1,2)R; (1,3)R; (1,4)R; (2,3)R; (2,4)R; (3,4)R– 1R2, 1R3, 1R4, 2R3, 2R4, 3R4– eg. (2,1) doesn’t belong to R
Binary relations – example #1
1 2 3 4
1 √ √ √
2 √ √
3 √
4
![Page 6: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
• Example– X={1,2,3,4}– R – a relation with no (easy) interpretation– R={(1,2), (1,3), (2,3), (2,4), (3,2), (4,4)}
Binary relations– example #2
1 2 3 4
1 √ √
2 √ √
3 √
4 √
![Page 7: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
• complete: xRy or yRx• reflexive: xRx (x)• antireflexive: not xRx (x)• transitive: if xRy and yRz, then xRz• symmetric: if xRy, then yRx• asymmetric: if xRy, then not yRx• antisymmetric: if xRy and yRx, then x=y• negatively transitive: if not xRy and not yRz, then not xRz
– equivalent to: xRz implies xRy or yRz
• acyclic: if x1Rx2, x2Rx3, … , xn-1Rxn imply x1≠xn
Binary relations – basic properties
![Page 8: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
complete √reflexive √ √ √ √
antireflexive √ √transitive √ √ √
symmetric √ √ √ √asymmetric √
antisymmetric √negatively transitive √ √
• R1: (among people), to have the same colour of the eyes• R2: (among people), to know each other• R3: (in the family), to be an ancestor of • R4: (among real numbers), not to have the same value• R5: (among words in English), to be a synonym• R6: (among countries), to be at least as good in a rank-table of summer olympics
Exercise – check the properties of the following relations
![Page 9: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
complete √reflexive √ √ √ √
antireflexive √ √transitive √ √ √
symmetric √ √ √ √asymmetric √
antisymmetric √negatively transitive √ √
• R1: (among people), to have the same colour of the eyes• R2: (among people), to know each other• R3: (in the family), to be an ancestor of • R4: (among real numbers), not to have the same value• R5: (among words in English), to be a synonym• R6: (among countries), to be at least as good in a rank-table of summer olympics
Exercise – check the properties of the following relations
![Page 10: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
• Preferences – capability of making comparisons, of selecting not worse an alternative out of a pair of alternatives– we’ll talk about selecting a strictly better (or just as good)
alternative later on
• Depending on its preferences we’ll use one of the relations:– preorder– partial order– complete preorder (rational preference relation)– complete order (linear order)
Preference relation
![Page 11: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
• R is a preorder in X, if it is:– reflexive– transitive
• We do not want R to be:– Complete – we cannot compare all the pairs of
alternatives– Antisymmetric – if xRy and yRX, then not
necessarily x=y
Preorder
![Page 12: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
• Michał is at a party and can pick from a buffet onto his plate: small tartares, cocktail tomatoes, sushi (maki), chunks of cheese
• A decision alternative is an orderd four-tuple, denoting number of respective pieces, there can be at most 20 pcs on the plate
• Michał preferes more pcs than fewer. At the same time, he prefers more tartare than less. Michał cannot tell, if he wants to have more pcs if it mean less tartare.
Preorder – an example
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=(x1,x2,x3,x4)N4: x1+x2+x3+x4≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1≥y1 x1+x2+x3+x4≥y1+y2+y3+y4
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYes
No (why?)No (why?)
![Page 13: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
• Michał is at a party and can pick from a buffet onto his plate: small tartares, cocktail tomatoes, sushi (maki), chunks of cheese
• A decision alternative is an orderd four-tuple, denoting number of respective pieces, there can be at most 20 pcs on the plate
• Michał preferes more pcs than fewer. At the same time, he prefers more tartare than less. Michał cannot tell, if he wants to have more pcs if it mean less tartare.
Preorder – an example
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=(x1,x2,x3,x4)N4: x1+x2+x3+x4≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1≥y1 x1+x2+x3+x4≥y1+y2+y3+y4
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYes
No (why?)No (why?)
![Page 14: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
• R is a partial order in X, if it is:– reflexive– transitive– antisymmetric (not needed in the preorder)
• We do not want it to be:– Complete – we cannot compare all the pairs of alternatives
Partial order
![Page 15: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
• Michał is at a party …• Decision alternatives are ordered pairs : # of pcs, # of
tartares
Partial order – an example
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=(x1,x2)N2: x2≤x1≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1≥y1 x2≥y2
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYes
No (why?)Yes (why?)
![Page 16: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
• Michał is at a party …• Decision alternatives are ordered pairs : # of pcs, # of
tartares• Conclusion – different structure (of the same problem),
different formal representation
Partial order – an example
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=(x1,x2)N2: x2≤x1≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1≥y1 x2≥y2
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYes
No (why?)Yes (why?)
![Page 17: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
• R is a complete preorder in X, if it is:– transitive– complete
• Completeness implies reflexivity• We do not want it to be:
– antisymmetric – equally good alternatives are allowed to differ
• In our example – if Michał didn’t value tartare (and just wanted to eat as much as possible)
Complete preorder – rational preference relation
![Page 18: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=(x1,x2,x3,x4)N4: x1+x2+x3+x4≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1+x2+x3+x4≥y1+y2+y3+y4
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYesYesNo
Complete preorder – rational preference relation
![Page 19: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
• R is a complete order in X, if it is:– transitive– complete– antisymmetric
• In our example:– Michał wants to eat as much as possible– we represent alternatives as # of pcs
Complete order (linear)
![Page 20: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Element Formal notation
Set of alternatives X X={x=x1N: x1≤20}
Relation R „at least as good as” xRy x1≥y1
Is R reflexive?… transitive?… complete?
… antisymmetric?
YesYesYesYes
Complete order (linear)
![Page 21: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Preference relations
Preorder Partial order Complete preorder
Complete order
reflexive √ √ √ √total √ √
transitive √ √ √ √antisymmetric √ √
![Page 22: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
• Let R be a complete preorder (transitive, complete)– xRy means „x is at least as good as y”
• R generates strict preference relation – P:– xPy, if xRy and not yRx– xPy means „x is better than y”
• R generates indifference relation – I:– xIy, if xRy and yRx– xIy means „x just as good as y”
Preference and indifference relation
![Page 23: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
• X={a,b,c,d}• R={(a,a), (a,b), (a,c), (a,d), (b,a), (b,b), (b,c), (b,d),
(c,c), (c,d), (d,d)}
• Find P and I
• P={(a,c), (a,d), (b,c), (b,d), (c,d)}• I={(a,a), (a,b), (b,a), (b,b), (c,c), (d,d)}• R=PI
An exercise
![Page 24: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
• Let P and I be generated by R – a complete preorder
• P is:– asymmetric– negatively transitive– antireflexive– acycylic– transitive
• I is an equivalence relation:– reflexive– transitive– symmetric
Properties of P and I (of previous slides)
![Page 25: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
• reflexive (xIx)– obvious – using reflexivity of R we get xRx
• transitive (xIy yIz xIz)– predecessor means that xRy yRx yRz zRy– using transitivity we get xRz zRx, QED
• symmetric (xIy yIx)– predecessor means that xRy yRx, QED
Proof of the properties of I (xIy xRy yRx)
![Page 26: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Logical preliminaryp q ∼p ∼q p ⇒ q ∼p ∨ q ∼q ⇒ ∼p0 0 1 1 1 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 00 1 1 0 1 1 11 1 0 0 1 1 1
p q ∼p ∼q p ∨ q ∼(p ∨ q) ∼q ∧ ∼p0 0 1 1 0 1 11 0 0 1 1 0 00 1 1 0 1 0 01 1 0 0 1 0 0
⇔
⇔ ⇔
![Page 27: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
• R is complete iff P is asymmetric
• R is transitive iff P is negatively transitive
P vs R (xPy xRy yRx)
![Page 28: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
1. Prove thatxRy yPz xPz
2. Show thatx,y: xPy xIy yPx
Homework
![Page 29: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
• Let’s start with relation P:– asymmetric– negatively transitive
• Then we say that– xIy, if xPy yPx– xRy, if xPy xIy
• Homework. Prove that with such definitions:– I is an equivalence relation– R is a complete preorder
Another definition of rational preferences
![Page 30: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
• X={a,b,c,d}• P={(a,d), (c,d), (a,b), (c,b)}
• Find R and I
• I={(a,a), (a,c), (b,b), (b,d), (c,a), (c,c), (d,b), (d,d)}
• R=PI
Exercise
![Page 31: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
• Can we start with I?– reflexive– symmetric– transitive
• No – we wouldn’t be able to order the abstraction classes
Another definition of rational preferences
![Page 32: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
• Is it enough to use P?– asymmetric– acyclic (not necessarily negatively transitive)
• No – let’s see an example
Another definition of rational preferences
![Page 33: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
• Mr X got ill and for years to come will have to take pills twice a day in an interval of exactly 12 hours. He can choose the time however.
• All the decision alternatives are represented by a circle with a circumference 12 (a clock). Let’s denote the alternatives by the length of an arc from a given point (midnight/noon).
• Mr X has very peculiar preferences – he prefers y to x, if y=x+p, otherwise he doesn’t care
• Thus yPx, if y lies on the circle p units farther (clockwise) than x
P from the previous slide – an example
![Page 34: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
• What properties does P have?– asymmetry– negative transitivity– transitivity– acyclicity
• P generates „weird” preferences:– 1+2p better than 1+p,
1+p better than 1, 1+2p equally good as 1
– 1 equally good as 1+p/2, 1+p/2 equally good as 1+p, 1 worse than 1+p
Exercise
![Page 35: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
• What if we take P?– asymmetric– transitive (not necessarily negatively transitive)– thus acyclic
• First let’s try to find an example• Then let’s think about such preferences
Another definition of rational preferences
![Page 36: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Asymmetric, transitive, not negatively transitive relation – intuition
![Page 37: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
• X={R+}, xPy x>y+5 (I want more, but I am insensitive to small changes)
• Properties of P:– asymmetric – obviously– transitive – obviously– negatively transitive?
• 11 P 5, but• neither 11 P 8, nor 8 P 5
• Thus I is not transitive: 11 I 8 and 8 I 5, but not 11 I 5
• Real example – non-inferiority testing– H0: m1=m2 vs H1: m1≠m2
– H0: m1≤m2-d vs H1: m1>m2
Asymmetric, transitive, not negatively transitive relation – example
![Page 38: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Properties of preferences – a summary
R („at least as good as”) – transitive, complete
P („better than”) – asymmetric, negatively
transitive
P („better than”) – asymmetric, transitive
P („better than”) – asymmetric, acyclic
colours, insensitiviness to small changes
eg. Mr X
![Page 39: Teoria podejmowania decyzji Relacja preferencji](https://reader035.fdocument.pub/reader035/viewer/2022062310/568161c9550346895dd1ada0/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
• Another way of talking about choice making is to talk about binary relations - preferences
• Depending on the structure of a decision problem at hand we can use relations: preorder, total preorder, partial order, total order– the same problem can be sometimes described in different ways
• Relation of weak preference generates strict preference relation and indifference relation. We can also start from the strict preference – asymmetric and negatively transitive
Summary