IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2008.05878.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling the expected probability of correct assignment under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Dvir
  • Renana Peres
  • Ze'ev Rudnick

Abstract

When making important decisions such as choosing health insurance or a school, people are often uncertain what levels of attributes will suit their true preference. After choice, they might realize that their uncertainty resulted in a mismatch: choosing a sub-optimal alternative, while another available alternative better matches their needs. We study here the overall impact, from a central planner's perspective, of decisions under such uncertainty. We use the representation of Voronoi tessellations to locate all individuals and alternatives in an attribute space. We provide an expression for the probability of correct match, and calculate, analytically and numerically, the average percentage of matches. We test dependence on the level of uncertainty and location. We find overall considerable mismatch even for low uncertainty - a possible concern for policy makers. We further explore a commonly used practice - allocating service representatives to assist individuals' decisions. We show that within a given budget and uncertainty level, the effective allocation is for individuals who are close to the boundary between several Voronoi cells, but are not right on the boundary.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Dvir & Renana Peres & Ze'ev Rudnick, 2020. "Modelling the expected probability of correct assignment under uncertainty," Papers 2008.05878, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2008.05878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.05878
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Parag A. Pathak & Jonathan Schellenberg & Christopher R. Walters, 2020. "Do Parents Value School Effectiveness?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(5), pages 1502-1539, May.
    2. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jun B. Kim & Carl F. Mela, 2016. "Zooming In on Choice: How Do Consumers Search for Cameras Online?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 693-712, September.
    3. Fernando Branco & Monic Sun & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2012. "Optimal Search for Product Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2056, November.
    4. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20.
    5. J. Jeffrey Inman & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 1997. "A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 97-111.
    6. Roth, Alvin E, 1986. "On the Allocation of Residents to Rural Hospitals: A General Property of Two-Sided Matching Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 425-427, March.
    7. Ehlers, Lars & Massó, Jordi, 2015. "Matching markets under (in)complete information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 295-314.
    8. Okabe, Atsuyuki & Suzuki, Atsuo, 1997. "Locational optimization problems solved through Voronoi diagrams," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 445-456, May.
    9. Stephen E. Chick & Peter Frazier, 2012. "Sequential Sampling with Economics of Selection Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 550-569, March.
    10. Dunia López-Pintado & Duncan J. Watts, 2008. "Social Influence, Binary Decisions and Collective Dynamics," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(4), pages 399-443, November.
    11. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    12. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. "Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
    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. Raluca M. Ursu & Qingliang Wang & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2020. "Search Duration," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 849-871, September.
    2. Daria Dzyabura & John R. Hauser, 2019. "Recommending Products When Consumers Learn Their Preference Weights," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 417-441, May.
    3. T. Tony Ke & Song Lin, 2020. "Informational Complementarity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3699-3716, August.
    4. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    5. Rafael P. Greminger, 2022. "Optimal Search and Discovery," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3904-3924, May.
    6. Domenico Moramarco & Umutcan Salman, 2023. "Equal opportunities in many-to-one matching markets," Working Papers 649, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    7. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    8. Gilbride, Timothy J. & Currim, Imran S. & Mintz, Ofer & Siddarth, S., 2016. "A Model for Inferring Market Preferences from Online Retail Product Information Matrices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 470-485.
    9. Raluca M. Ursu & Daria Dzyabura, 2020. "Retailers’ product location problem with consumer search," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 125-154, June.
    10. Frank Huettner & Tamer Boyacı & Yalçın Akçay, 2019. "Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 671-699, May.
    11. Xinyu Cao & Yuting Zhu, 2024. "The Power of Commitment in Group Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 213-228, January.
    12. Raluca M. Ursu & Qianyun Zhang & Elisabeth Honka, 2023. "Search Gaps and Consumer Fatigue," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 110-136, January.
    13. Qingwei Jin & Mengyan Zhu & Yi Yang & Lin Liu, 2022. "Consumer search with anticipated regret," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3337-3351, August.
    14. Barbara E. Kahn & Mary Frances Luce, 2003. "Understanding High-Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False-Alarm Test Results," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 393-410, April.
    15. Ert, Eyal & Raz, Ornit & Heiman, Amir, 2016. "(Poor) seeing is believing: When direct experience impairs product promotion," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 881-895.
    16. Benoit Decerf & Guillaume Haeringer & Martin Van der Linden, 2024. "Incontestable Assignments," Papers 2401.03598, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    17. Z. Eddie Ning & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2023. "Browse or Experience," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 336-359, March.
    18. Basteck, Christian & Klaus, Bettina & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "How lotteries in school choice help to level the playing field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 198-237.
    19. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    20. Andreas Lanz & Gregor Reich & Ole Wilms, 2022. "Adaptive grids for the estimation of dynamic models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 179-238, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2008.05878. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.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.