Optimal Decision Stimuli for Risky Choice Experiments: An Adaptive Approach

References

• Abdellaoui M. Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. (2000) 46(11):1497–1512Link, Google Scholar
• Aigner DJ. A brief introduction to the methodology of optimal experimental design. J. Econometrics (1979) 11(1):7–26Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. (1953) 21(4):503–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amzal B, Bois FY, Parent E, Robert CP. Bayesian-optimal design via interacting particle systems. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2006) 101(474):773–785Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AC, Donev AN. Optimum Experimental Designs (1992) (Claredon Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Atkinson AC, Federov VV. The design of experiments for discriminating between two rival models. Biometrika (1975a) 62(1):57–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AC, Federov VV. Optimal design: Experiments for discriminating between several models. Biometrika (1975b) 62(2):289–303Google Scholar
• Becker G, DeGroot M, Marschak J. Stochatic models of choice behavior. Behav. Sci. (1963) 8(1):41–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binmore K, Shaked A. Experimental economics: Science or what? (2007) . Report, ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution, LondonGoogle Scholar
• Birnbaum MH. A comparison of five models that predict violations of first-order stochastic dominance in risky decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 31(3):263–287Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH. New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psych. Rev. (2008) 115(2):463–500Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Gutierrez RJ. Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2007) 104(1):96–112Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR. Stochastic expected utility. J. Risk Uncertainty (2007) 34(3):259–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF. An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. J. Risk Uncertainty (1989) 2(1):61–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavagnaro DR, Pitt MA, Myung JI. Model discrimination through adaptive experimentation. Psychonomic Bulletin Rev. (2011) 18(1):204–210Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavagnaro DR, Myung JI, Pitt MA, Kujala JV. Adaptive design optimization: A mutual information based approach to model discrimination in cognitive science. Neural Comput. (2010) 22(4):887–905Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaloner K, Verdinelli I. Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statist. Sci. (1995) 10(3):273–304Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH. A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. (1983) 51(4):1065–1092Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Waller WS. Empirical tests of weighted utility theory. J. Math. Psych. (1986) 30(1):55–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn D, Atlas L, Ladner R. Improving generalization with active learning. Machine Learn. (1994) 15(2):201–221Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn D, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI. Active learning with statistical models. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. (1996) 4:129–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cover TM, Thomas JA. Elements of Information Theory (1991) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deng X, Joseph VR, Sudjianto A, Wu CFJ. Active learning through sequential design, with applications to detection of money laudering. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2009) 104(487):969–981Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Rosner GL, Müller P. Bayesian optimal design for phase II screening trials. Biometrics (2008) 64(3):886–894Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dzyabura D, Hauser JR. Active machine learning for consideration heuristics. Marketing Sci. (2011) 30(5):801–819Link, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. (1961) 75(4):643–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fennema H, Wakker P. Original and cumulative prospect theory: A discussion of empirical differences. J. Behav. Decision Making (1997) 10(1):53–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis (2004) 2nd ed.(Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL) Google Scholar
• Großmann H, Holling H, Schwabe R. Advances in optimum experimental design for conjoint analysis and discrete choice models. Adv. Econometrics (2002) 16:93–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haines LM, Perevozskaya I, Rosenberer WF. Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics (2003) 59(3):591–600Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless DW, Camerer CF. The predictive utility of generalized exected utility theories. Econometrica (1994) 62(6):1251–1289Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD. Why we should not be silent about noise. Experiment. Econom. (2005) 8(4):325–345Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica (1994) 62(6):1291–1326Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Cassandra AR. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence (1998) 101(1–2):99–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. (1979) 47(2):263–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1995) 90(430):773–795Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiefer J. Optimum experimental designs. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Series B Meth. (1959) 21(2):272–319Google Scholar
• Kreutz C, Timmer J. Systems biology: Experimental design. FEBS J. (2009) 276(4):923–942Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruschke JK. Bayesian approaches to associative learning: From passive to active learning. Learn. Behav. (2008) 36(3):210Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Marketing Res. (1994) 31:545–557Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kujala JV, Lukka TJ. Bayesian adaptive estimation: The next dimension. J. Math. Psych. (2006) 50(4):369–389Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leek MR. Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception Psychophysics (2001) 63(8):1279Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lesmes LA, Jeon S-T, Lu Z-L, Dosher BA. Bayesian adaptive estimation of threshold versus contrast external noise functions: The quick TvC method. Vision Res. (2006) 46(19):3160–3176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lesmes LA, Lu Z-L, Baek J, Albright TD. Bayesian adaptive estimation of the contrast sensitivity function: The quick CSF method. J. Vision (2010) 10(3):Article 17Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewi J, Butera R, Paninski L. Sequential optimal design of neurophysiology experiments. Neural Comput. (2009) 21(3):619–687Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindley DV. On a measure of the information provided by an experiment. Ann. Math. Statist. (1956) 27(4):986–1005Crossref, Google Scholar
• Littman ML. A tutorial on partially observable Markov decision process. J. Math. Psych. (2009) 53(3):119–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R. Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econom. Rev. (1995) 39(3):641–648Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Moffatt PG, Sugden R. A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty (2002) 24(2):103–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loredo TJ, Chernoff DF, Feigelson ED, Babu GJ. Bayesian adaptive exploration. Statistical Challenges in Astronomy (2003) (Springer-Verlag, New York) 57–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina M. Expected utility theory without the independence axiom. Econometrica (1982) 50(2):277–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marschak J. Rational behavior, uncertain prospects, and measurable utility. Econometrica (1950) 18(2):111–141Crossref, Google Scholar
• McClelland GH. Optimal design in psychological research. Psych. Methods (1997) 2(1):3–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Müller P, Sanso B, De Iorio M. Optimal Bayesian design by in homogeneous Markov chain simulation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2004) 99(467):788–798Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myung J. The importance of complexity in model selection. J. Math. Psych. (2000) 44(1):190–204Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myung J, Pitt MA. Optimal experimental design for model discrimination. Psych. Rev. (2009) 116(3):499–518Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer O, Srinivasan VS. Adaptive self-explication of multi-attribute preferences. (2007) . Working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
• Robert CP, Casella G. Monte Carlo Methods (2004) 2nd ed.(Springer, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Literature (2000) 38(2):332–382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB, Wagenmakers E-J, Blum B. Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Sci. (2003) 27(3):453–489Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott HP. Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty (2006) 32:101–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5(4):297–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vermeulen B, Good P, Vandbroek M. Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2008) 25(2):94–103Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G, Gonzalez R. Common consequence conditions in decision making under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty (1998) 16(1):115–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G, Zhang J, Abdellaoui M. Testing prospect theories using probability tradeoff consistency. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 30(2):107–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Lee MD. Optimal experimental design for a class of bandit problems. J. Math. Psych. (2010) 54(6):499–508Crossref, Google Scholar