期望比较效用理论

David Robert
{"title":"期望比较效用理论","authors":"David Robert","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2984382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes a new theory of rational choice. Contra standard decision theory, this paper roughly argues that an agent should rank her choice options (in terms of how choiceworthy they are) according to their expected comparative utility. For any number of alternative options, a, b, c, d and e, the expected comparative utility of a is the probability-weighted average of the differences in utility between a and b, c, d or e across the various states – that is, for each state, the difference in utility between a and whichever of b, c, d and e carries the greatest utility in that state. In a number of ordinary decision cases, ECU Theory gives different verdicts from those of EU Theory.","PeriodicalId":299964,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Action eJournal","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expected Comparative Utility Theory\",\"authors\":\"David Robert\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2984382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper proposes a new theory of rational choice. Contra standard decision theory, this paper roughly argues that an agent should rank her choice options (in terms of how choiceworthy they are) according to their expected comparative utility. For any number of alternative options, a, b, c, d and e, the expected comparative utility of a is the probability-weighted average of the differences in utility between a and b, c, d or e across the various states – that is, for each state, the difference in utility between a and whichever of b, c, d and e carries the greatest utility in that state. In a number of ordinary decision cases, ECU Theory gives different verdicts from those of EU Theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Action eJournal\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Action eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2984382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Action eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2984382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了一种新的理性选择理论。与标准决策理论相反,本文粗略地认为,agent应该根据其预期的比较效用对其选择选项进行排序(根据它们的选择价值)。对于任意数量的备选方案a、b、c、d和e, a的预期比较效用是在不同状态下a与b、c、d或e之间效用差异的概率加权平均值——也就是说,对于每个状态,a与b、c、d和e中任何一个在该状态下具有最大效用的效用之差。在一些普通的判决案例中,ECU理论给出了与EU理论不同的判决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expected Comparative Utility Theory
This paper proposes a new theory of rational choice. Contra standard decision theory, this paper roughly argues that an agent should rank her choice options (in terms of how choiceworthy they are) according to their expected comparative utility. For any number of alternative options, a, b, c, d and e, the expected comparative utility of a is the probability-weighted average of the differences in utility between a and b, c, d or e across the various states – that is, for each state, the difference in utility between a and whichever of b, c, d and e carries the greatest utility in that state. In a number of ordinary decision cases, ECU Theory gives different verdicts from those of EU Theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信