IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v303y2022i1p328-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic focus programming: A new approach to sequential decision problems under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Guo, Peijun

Abstract

A new approach to sequential decision problems under uncertainty named dynamic focus programming is proposed with the focus theory of choice. In dynamic focus programming, there are two distinct evaluation systems: Positive and negative ones. Each possible path consisting of a decision sequence from the initial stage to the final stage and the associated states is examined. In the positive evaluation system, for each decision in the initial stage, if a path starting from it can bring about a relatively low total cost with a relatively high probability, then this path is selected as the positive focus path of this decision; based on the positive focus paths of all initial decisions, a decision maker chooses a most-preferred decision rule. In the negative evaluation system, for each decision in the initial stage, if a path starting from it can bring about a relatively high total cost with a relatively high probability, then this path is selected as the negative focus path of this decision; based on the negative focus paths of all initial decisions, a decision maker chooses a most acceptable decision rule. For a specific sequential decision problem, only one system is activated; as for which one works, it is strongly dependent on decision maker's personality and the framing. We apply dynamic focus programming to a real bidding decision-making problem: We obtain the optimal decision rule and gain the behavioral insights of the decision maker.

Suggested Citation

  • Guo, Peijun, 2022. "Dynamic focus programming: A new approach to sequential decision problems under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 328-336.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:303:y:2022:i:1:p:328-336
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.02.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221722001655
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.02.044?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. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Wonjun Chang & Michael C. Ferris & Youngdae Kim & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2020. "Solving Stochastic Dynamic Programming Problems: A Mixed Complementarity Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 55(3), pages 925-955, March.
    3. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-92-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Flapper, S.D.P. & Gayon, J.P. & Vercraene, S., 2012. "Control of a production–inventory system with returns under imperfect advance return information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 392-400.
    5. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    6. Sanjog Misra & Harikesh Nair, 2011. "A structural model of sales-force compensation dynamics: Estimation and field implementation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 211-257, September.
    7. Warren B. Powell & Belgacem Bouzaiene-Ayari & Coleman Lawrence & Clark Cheng & Sourav Das & Ricardo Fiorillo, 2014. "Locomotive Planning at Norfolk Southern: An Optimizing Simulator Using Approximate Dynamic Programming," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 567-578, December.
    8. Shapiro, Alexander & Tekaya, Wajdi & da Costa, Joari Paulo & Soares, Murilo Pereira, 2013. "Risk neutral and risk averse Stochastic Dual Dynamic Programming method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(2), pages 375-391.
    9. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    10. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    11. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    12. Francesca Maggioni & Elisabetta Allevi & Asgeir Tomasgard, 2020. "Bounds in multi-horizon stochastic programs," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 292(2), pages 605-625, September.
    13. Meghan R. Busse & Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Jorge Silva-Risso & Justin R. Sydnor, 2013. "Estimating the Effect of Salience in Wholesale and Retail Car Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 575-579, May.
    14. Richard Bellman, 1957. "On a Dynamic Programming Approach to the Caterer Problem--I," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 270-278, April.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    17. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    18. Eric J. Johnson & David A. Schkade, 1989. "Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 406-424, April.
    19. John Rust, 2019. "Has Dynamic Programming Improved Decision Making?," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 833-858, August.
    20. Xide Zhu & Peijun Guo, 2020. "Bilevel programming approaches to production planning for multiple products with short life cycles," 4OR, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 151-175, June.
    21. Fei, Xin & Gülpınar, Nalân & Branke, Jürgen, 2019. "Efficient solution selection for two-stage stochastic programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 918-929.
    22. Wang, Chao & Guo, Peijun, 2017. "Behavioral models for first-price sealed-bid auctions with the one-shot decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 994-1000.
    23. Minis, I. & Tatarakis, A., 2011. "Stochastic single vehicle routing problem with delivery and pick up and a predefined customer sequence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 37-51, August.
    24. J. Solnick, Sara & Hemenway, David, 1998. "Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 373-383, November.
    25. Guo, Peijun & Ma, Xiuyan, 2014. "Newsvendor models for innovative products with one-shot decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 523-536.
    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. Cervellera, Cristiano, 2023. "Optimized ensemble value function approximation for dynamic programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 719-730.

    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. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    2. Xide Zhu & Peijun Guo, 2020. "Bilevel programming approaches to production planning for multiple products with short life cycles," 4OR, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 151-175, June.
    3. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    4. Xide Zhu & Kevin W. Li & Peijun Guo, 2023. "A bilevel optimization model for the newsvendor problem with the focus theory of choice," 4OR, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 471-489, September.
    5. Xide Zhu & Zhiheng Hu & Guihua Lin & Weina Xu, 2023. "Strategy Analysis for Retailer-Leading Supply Chain under Buyback Contract with Focus Theory of Choice," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    7. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00718642, HAL.
    8. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    9. Carvalho, M., 2011. "Essays in behavioral microeconomic theory," Other publications TiSEM 97fbb10e-5f12-420b-b8c4-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Chopard, Bertrand & Obidzinski, Marie, 2021. "Public law enforcement under ambiguity," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    12. Richard J. Arend, 2022. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: insights from exploring a simple linked two-game model," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5845-5861, November.
    13. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    14. Francesco Cavazza & Francesco Galioto & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2020. "Digital Irrigated Agriculture: Towards a Framework for Comprehensive Analysis of Decision Processes under Uncertainty," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
    16. Irma Machielse & Danielle Timmermans & Peter Wakker, 2007. "The effects of statistical information on risk ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions," Natural Field Experiments 00338, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Guo, Peijun & Li, Yonggang, 2014. "Approaches to multistage one-shot decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 612-623.
    18. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    20. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, 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:eee:ejores:v:303:y:2022:i:1:p:328-336. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.