IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comgts/v20y2023i1d10.1007_s10287-023-00475-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference robust state-dependent distortion risk measure on act space and its application in optimal decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Wang

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong
    University of Southampton)

  • Huifu Xu

    (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Decision-making under uncertainty involves three fundamental components: acts, states of nature, and consequences, as first introduced by Savage (The foundations of statistics, Wiley, New York, 1954). An act is uniquely determined by a number of random consequences that are associated with different states of nature. If the consequences are identical across all states of nature, then the act is state-independent. Prior research on distortion risk measures (DRMs) has primarily focused on state-independent acts. In this paper, we extend the research to state-dependent acts by introducing a state-dependent DRM (SDRM) under the Anscombe–Aumann’s framework (Anscombe and Aumannin in Ann Math Stat 34(1):199–205, 1963). The proposed SDRM is the weighted average of DRMs at each state, where the weights are determined by the decision maker’s (DM’s) subjective probabilities of the states. In situations where there is incomplete information about the DM’s true distortion function and/or the true subjective probabilities of the states, we introduce a preference robust SDRM (PRSDRM) for acts. The PRSDRM is based on the worst-case state-dependent distortion function and the worst-case subjective probabilities over a dependent joint ambiguity set constructed with partially available information. To compute the PRSDRM numerically, we show that when the distortion functions are concave, it can be formulated as a biconvex program and further as a convex program by changing some variables. As a motivation and application, we use the PRSDRM for decision-making problems and propose an alternating iterative algorithm for solving it. Finally, we conduct numerical experiments to assess the performance of our proposed model and computational scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Wang & Huifu Xu, 2023. "Preference robust state-dependent distortion risk measure on act space and its application in optimal decision making," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-51, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:comgts:v:20:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10287-023-00475-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10287-023-00475-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10287-023-00475-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10287-023-00475-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jian Hu & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2015. "Robust decision making over a set of random targets or risk-averse utilities with an application to portfolio optimization," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 358-372, April.
    2. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    3. David B. Brown & Enrico De Giorgi & Melvyn Sim, 2012. "Aspirational Preferences and Their Representation by Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2095-2113, November.
    4. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    5. Castaño-Martínez, Antonia & López-Blazquez, Fernando & Pigueiras, Gema & Sordo, Miguel Á., 2020. "A Method For Constructing And Interpreting Some Weighted Premium Principles," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 1037-1064, September.
    6. Tsanakas, A. & Desli, E., 2003. "Risk Measures and Theories of Choice," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 959-991, October.
    7. Belles-Sampera, Jaume & Guillen, Montserrat & Santolino, Miguel, 2016. "What attitudes to risk underlie distortion risk measure choices?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 101-109.
    8. Boonen, Tim J., 2015. "Competitive Equilibria With Distortion Risk Measures," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 703-728, September.
    9. A. Ben-Tal & M. Teboulle, 1987. "Penalty Functions and Duality in Stochastic Programming Via (phi)-Divergence Functionals," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 224-240, May.
    10. Jaume Belles‐Sampera & Montserrat Guillén & Miguel Santolino, 2014. "Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 121-134, January.
    11. Wang, Qiuqi & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Yunran, 2020. "Distortion Riskmetrics On General Spaces," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 827-851, September.
    12. Weber, Martin, 1987. "Decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-57, January.
    13. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    14. Mohammed Berkhouch & Ghizlane Lakhnati & Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2019. "Spectral risk measures and uncertainty," Papers 1905.07716, arXiv.org.
    15. Denneberg, Dieter, 1990. "Premium Calculation: Why Standard Deviation Should be Replaced by Absolute Deviation1," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 181-190, November.
    16. Brian Hill, 2019. "A Non‐Bayesian Theory of State‐Dependent Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1341-1366, July.
    17. Wang, Shaun, 1996. "Premium Calculation by Transforming the Layer Premium Density," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 71-92, May.
    18. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    19. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    20. Mary Hardy, 2001. "A Regime-Switching Model of Long-Term Stock Returns," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 41-53.
    21. Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, 2021. "Inverse Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 7113-7141, November.
    22. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    23. French, Kenneth R & Poterba, James M, 1991. "Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 222-226, May.
    24. Karni, Edi, 1983. "Risk Aversion for State-Dependent Utility Functions: Measurement and Applications," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(3), pages 637-647, October.
    25. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt, 2015. "Testing Ambiguity Models through the Measurement of Probabilities for Gains and Losses," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 77-100, May.
    26. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    27. Jian Hu & Tito Homem-de-Mello & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2011. "Risk-adjusted budget allocation models with application in homeland security," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(12), pages 819-839.
    28. Wei Wang & Huifu Xu, 2023. "Preference robust distortion risk measure and its application," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 389-434, April.
    29. Acerbi, Carlo, 2002. "Spectral measures of risk: A coherent representation of subjective risk aversion," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1505-1518, July.
    30. Jay Lu, 2019. "Bayesian Identification: A Theory for State-Dependent Utilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3192-3228, September.
    31. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    32. Furman, Edward & Wang, Ruodu & Zitikis, Ričardas, 2017. "Gini-type measures of risk and variability: Gini shortfall, capital allocations, and heavy-tailed risks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 70-84.
    33. Hu, Jian & Bansal, Manish & Mehrotra, Sanjay, 2018. "Robust decision making using a general utility set," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 699-714.
    34. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    35. Jiang, Wenjun & Escobar-Anel, Marcos & Ren, Jiandong, 2020. "Optimal Insurance Contracts Under Distortion Risk Measures With Ambiguity Aversion," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 619-646, May.
    36. Daniela Escobar & Georg Pflug, 2018. "The distortion principle for insurance pricing: properties, identification and robustness," Papers 1809.06592, arXiv.org.
    37. Stefan Weber, 2006. "Distribution‐Invariant Risk Measures, Information, And Dynamic Consistency," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 419-441, April.
    38. Robert Jarrow & Siguang Li, 2021. "Concavity, stochastic utility, and risk aversion," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 311-330, April.
    39. Sordo, Miguel A. & Castaño-Martínez, Antonia & Pigueiras, Gema, 2016. "A family of premium principles based on mixtures of TVaRs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 397-405.
    40. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David & Vind, Karl, 1983. "On State Dependent Preferences and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1021-1031, July.
    41. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wei Wang & Huifu Xu, 2023. "Preference robust distortion risk measure and its application," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 389-434, April.
    2. Sainan Zhang & Huifu Xu, 2022. "Insurance premium-based shortfall risk measure induced by cumulative prospect theory," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 703-738, October.
    3. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    4. Xia Han & Ruodu Wang & Xun Yu Zhou, 2022. "Choquet regularization for reinforcement learning," Papers 2208.08497, arXiv.org.
    5. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei & Gordon E. Willmot, 2020. "Characterization, Robustness, and Aggregation of Signed Choquet Integrals," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 993-1015, August.
    6. William B. Haskell & Wenjie Huang & Huifu Xu, 2018. "Preference Elicitation and Robust Optimization with Multi-Attribute Quasi-Concave Choice Functions," Papers 1805.06632, arXiv.org.
    7. Chuancun Yin & Dan Zhu, 2015. "New class of distortion risk measures and their tail asymptotics with emphasis on VaR," Papers 1503.08586, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    8. Wächter, Hans Peter & Mazzoni, Thomas, 2013. "Consistent modeling of risk averse behavior with spectral risk measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 487-495.
    9. Debora Daniela Escobar & Georg Ch. Pflug, 2020. "The distortion principle for insurance pricing: properties, identification and robustness," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 292(2), pages 771-794, September.
    10. Boonen, Tim J., 2017. "Risk Redistribution Games With Dual Utilities," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 303-329, January.
    11. Dilip B. Madan, 2016. "Conic Portfolio Theory," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 1-42, May.
    12. Silvana Pesenti & Qiuqi Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2020. "Optimizing distortion riskmetrics with distributional uncertainty," Papers 2011.04889, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    13. Denuit Michel & Dhaene Jan & Goovaerts Marc & Kaas Rob & Laeven Roger, 2006. "Risk measurement with equivalent utility principles," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, July.
    14. Daniela Escobar & Georg Pflug, 2018. "The distortion principle for insurance pricing: properties, identification and robustness," Papers 1809.06592, arXiv.org.
    15. Samuel Solgon Santos & Marcelo Brutti Righi & Eduardo de Oliveira Horta, 2022. "The limitations of comonotonic additive risk measures: a literature review," Papers 2212.13864, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    16. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    17. Tsanakas, Andreas, 2009. "To split or not to split: Capital allocation with convex risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 268-277, April.
    18. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    19. Albrecht, Peter & Huggenberger, Markus, 2017. "The fundamental theorem of mutual insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 180-188.
    20. Leili Javanmardi & Yuri Lawryshyn, 2016. "A new rank dependent utility approach to model risk averse preferences in portfolio optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 161-176, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comgts:v:20:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10287-023-00475-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.