IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.00970.html

Prospect-Theory Behavior from Bellman Optimality in MDPs with Catastrophic States

Author

Listed:
  • Yujiao Chen

Abstract

We study risk-neutral control in Markov decision processes with an absorbing catastrophic state. Even though rewards are linear and the agent has no utility curvature, probability weighting, or framing dependence, standard Bellman optimality produces three prospect-theory-like signatures: an S-shaped value-function profile (convex near catastrophe, concave in the far field), an endogenous loss-sensitivity coefficient $\lambda^*(S) > 1$, and a reflection-effect policy reversal. Across 495 configurations, the optimal policy plays safe near catastrophe in positive-drift (growth) regimes despite the risky action's higher immediate expected value, and plays risky near catastrophe in negative-drift (decline) regimes despite the safe action's lower immediate expected loss. We derive a closed-form expression for the asymptotic loss-aversion plateau $\bar{\lambda}$ that depends only on win probability $p$, payoff asymmetry $r = |\Delta_\ell/\Delta_w|$, and discount factor $\beta$, and matches numerical solutions to $R^2 = 0.999$. The mechanism does not require asymmetric payoffs. Across a sweep of $(p,\beta)$ at three asymmetry levels, the asymmetry share of $\bar{\lambda}$ above unity has median 4.6% at $r = 1.25$ and rises to 13.9% at $r = 2$, with the boundary contribution exceeding the asymmetry contribution in every cell tested. The phenomena persist under tabular Q-learning (a model-free agent reproduces $V^*$ at correlation 0.98 in growth and 1.00 in decline) and under stochastic transitions with Gaussian, heavy-tailed Student-$t_3$, and asymmetric skew-normal noise up to 50% of the step size, where the asymptotic plateau tracks the closed-form prediction within 0.41% for safe-channel noise and within 9.6% for risky-channel or both-channel noise. These results identify absorbing failure states as a sufficient structural mechanism for prospect-theory-like behavior under optimal control.

Suggested Citation

  • Yujiao Chen, 2026. "Prospect-Theory Behavior from Bellman Optimality in MDPs with Catastrophic States," Papers 2606.00970, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.00970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.00970
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumitava Mukherjee & Arvind Sahay & V. S. Chandrasekhar Pammi & Narayanan Srinivasan, 2017. "Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 81-89, January.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. 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..
    4. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    5. Ronald A. Howard & James E. Matheson, 1972. "Risk-Sensitive Markov Decision Processes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(7), pages 356-369, March.
    6. Arthur J. Robson, 2001. "The Biological Basis of Economic Behavior," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 11-33, March.
    7. Mukherjee, Sumitava & Sahay, Arvind & Pammi, V. S. Chandrasekhar & Srinivasan, Narayanan, 2017. "Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 81-89, January.
    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. Walasek, Lukasz & Mullett, Timothy L. & Stewart, Neil, 2024. "A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Daniel A. Sanchez-Loor & Trang Thi Thuy Huynh & Wei-Shiun Chang, 2026. "Adaptive risk assessment: How massive disruption moderates risk propensity and organisational risk management strategies—lessons from COVID-19," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(2), pages 1-35, May.
    3. Puerta, Inmaculada R. & Pinto, José Luis, 2025. "Can reference-dependent loss aversion explain choice behaviour?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Ashby, Rhys & Sharifi, Shahin & Yao, Jun & Ang, Lawrence, 2025. "The influence of the buy-now-pay-later payment mode on consumer spending decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 103-119.
    5. Rahman, Oriana & Semenov, Andrei, 2025. "Subjective probabilities under behavioral heuristics," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Alex Krumer & Felix Otto & Tim Pawlowski, 2025. "Varying reference-point salience," Papers 2506.13382, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    7. Martyna Kobus & Radoslaw Kurek & Thomas Parker, 2024. "Ranking Policies Under Loss Aversion and Inequality Aversion," Working Papers 59, Institute of Economics, Polish Academy of Sciences.
    8. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2024. "Toward an Information-Processing Theory of Loss Aversion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 523-541, May.
    9. Ross Chu, 2025. "Salary Matching and Pay Cut Reduction for Job Seekers with Loss Aversion," Papers 2512.22818, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    10. Gilboa, Shaked & Vilnai-Yavetz, Iris & Mitchell, Vince, 2025. "Revitalizing retail: The roles of functionality and recreation in shaping mall experiences in a changing retail era," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    11. van Dolder, Dennie & Vandenbroucke, Jurgen, 2024. "Behavioral risk profiling: Measuring loss aversion of individual investors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Anton Suvorov & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Goal Setting as a Self-Regulation Mechanism," Working Papers w0122, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
    13. Meisner, Vincent & von Wangenheim, Jonas, 2019. "School Choice and Loss Aversion," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 208, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    14. Qin, Dan, 2024. "Differentiating roles of the reference alternative," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 196-221.
    15. Crawford, Vincent P. & Jin, Miao & Meng, Juanjuan & Yao, Lan, 2025. "Expectations-based reference-dependence and labor supply: Eliciting cabdrivers’ expectations in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    16. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    17. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    18. Castilla, Carolina & Haab, Timothy C., 2010. "Asymmetric Search and Loss Aversion: Choice Experiment on Consumer Willingness to Search in the Gasoline Retail Market," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61672, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Philippe Jehiel & Jakub Steiner, 2020. "Selective Sampling with Information-Storage Constraints [On interim rationality, belief formation and learning in decision problems with bounded memory]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1753-1781.
    20. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.

    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:2606.00970. 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: https://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.