IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/3438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the falsifiability and learnability of decision theories

Author

Listed:
  • Basu, Pathikrit

    (Caltech)

  • Echenique, Federico

    (Caltech)

Abstract

We study the degree of falsifiability of theories of choice. A theory is easy to falsify if relatively small datasets are enough to guarantee that the theory can be falsified: the VC dimension of a theory is the largest sample size for which the theory is ``never falsifiable.'' VC dimension is motivated strategically. We consider a model with a strategic proponent of a theory, and a skeptical consumer, or user, of theories. The former presents experimental evidence in favor of the theory, and the latter may doubt whether the experiment could ever have falsified the theory. We focus on decision-making under uncertainty, considering the central models of Expected Utility, Choquet Expected Utility and Max-min Expected Utility models. We show that Expected Utility has VC dimension that grows linearly with the number of states while that of Choquet Expected Utility grows exponentially. The Max-min Expected Utility model has infinite VC dimension when there are at least three states of the world. In consequence, Expected Utility is easily falsified, while the more flexible Choquet and Max-min Expected Utility are hard to falsify. Finally, as VC dimension and statistical estimation are related, we study the implications of our results for machine learning approaches to preference recovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Basu, Pathikrit & Echenique, Federico, 2020. "On the falsifiability and learnability of decision theories," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(4), November.
  • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:3438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20201279/29097/813
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chambers,Christopher P. & Echenique,Federico, 2016. "Revealed Preference Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107087804, September.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1992. "Additive Representation of Non-Additive Measures and the Choquet Integral," Discussion Papers 985, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    3. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324, September.
    4. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1996. "Why Are Certain Properties of Binary Relations Relatively More Common in Natural Language?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 343-355, March.
    5. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    6. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," NBER Working Papers 24931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jonathan Chapman & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer & Mark Dean, 2017. "Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept are Probably Less Correlated than You Think," CESifo Working Paper Series 6492, CESifo.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher P. Chambers & Federico Echenique & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2021. "Recovering Preferences From Finite Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1633-1664, July.
    2. Christopher P. Chambers & Federico Echenique & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2023. "Recovering utility," Papers 2301.11492, arXiv.org.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & Wayne Gao & Annie Liang, 2020. "How Flexible is that Functional Form? Quantifying the Restrictiveness of Theories," Papers 2007.09213, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.

    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. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    2. Baccelli, Jean & Hartmann, Lorenz, 2023. "The Sure-Thing Principle," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Christopher P. Chambers & Federico Echenique & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2023. "Recovering utility," Papers 2301.11492, arXiv.org.
    4. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    5. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2022. "Choquet Integrals and Belief Functions," KIER Working Papers 1077, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    7. Pivato, Marcus & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2017. "Subjective expected utility representations for Savage preferences on topological spaces," MPRA Paper 77359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Billot, Antoine & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2018. "Expected utility without parsimony," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 14-21.
    9. Xiangyu Qu, 2017. "Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 503-519, February.
    10. Zappia, Carlo, 2021. "Leonard Savage, The Ellsberg Paradox, And The Debate On Subjective Probabilities: Evidence From The Archives," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 169-192, June.
    11. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    12. Millner, Antony & Dietz, Simon & Heal, Geoffrey, 2010. "Ambiguity and climate policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37595, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iepso50rh is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Nicholas J. J. Smith, 2023. "Acting on belief functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 575-621, November.
    15. Tallon, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Do sunspots matter when agents are Choquet-expected-utility maximizers?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 357-368, March.
    16. Ekaterina Svetlova & Henk van Elst, 2014. "Decision-theoretic approaches to non-knowledge in economics," Papers 1407.0787, arXiv.org.
    17. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    18. Beissner, Patrick & Werner, Jan, 2023. "Optimal allocations with α-MaxMin utilities, Choquet expected utilities, and Prospect Theory," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    19. Mikhail Timonin, 2016. "Choquet integral in decision analysis - lessons from the axiomatization," Papers 1611.09926, arXiv.org.
    20. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    21. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iepso50rh is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2007. "The weight of argument and non-additive measures: a note," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 003, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Revealed preference theory; decision theory; machine learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:the:publsh:3438. 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: Martin J. Osborne (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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.