Decomposition of multiattribute expected-utility functions

This paper integrates and extends the theory of the decomposition of multiattribute expected-utility functions based on “utility independence”. In a preliminary section, the standard decision model of expected utility is briefly discussed, including the fact that the decision maker's preference forlotteries with two outcomes determines the utility function uniquely. The decomposition possibilities of a utility function are captured by the concept ofautonomous sets of attributes, an “affine separability” of some kind known as “generalized utility independence”.Overlapping autonomous sets lead to biaffine-associative, i.e.multiplicative oradditive decompositions. The multiplicative representation shows that autonomy has strongerclosure properties than utility independence, for instance with respect to set-theoretic difference. Autonomy is also a concept with a wider scope since it applies to the decomposition of Boolean functions, games and a number of other topics in combinatorial optimization. This relationship to the well-known theory ofsubstitution decomposition in discrete mathematics also reveals a kind of “discrete core” behind the decomposition of utility functions. The entirety of autonomous sets can be represented by a compact data structure, the so-calledcomposition tree, which frequently corresponds to a natural hierarchy of attributes. Multiplicative/additive ormulti-affine functions correspond to the hierarchy steps. The known representation of multi-affine functions is shown to be given by aMoebius inversion formula. The entire approach has the advantage that it allows the application of more sophisticated representation methods on a detailed level, whereas it employs onlyfinite set theory andarithmetic on the main levels in the hierarchy.

[1]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[2]  G. Debreu Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory , 1959 .

[3]  H. A. Curtis,et al.  A new approach to The design of switching circuits , 1962 .

[4]  G. Rota On the foundations of combinatorial theory I. Theory of Möbius Functions , 1964 .

[5]  H. Schneeweiß,et al.  Entscheidungskriterien bei Risiko , 1967 .

[6]  W. M. Gorman The Structure of Utility Functions , 1968 .

[7]  J. Aczél,et al.  Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications , 1968 .

[8]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Utility theory for decision making , 1970 .

[9]  G. Owen Multilinear Extensions of Games , 1972 .

[10]  P. Fishburn,et al.  Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions , 1974 .

[11]  N. Megiddo Tensor Decomposition of Cooperative Games , 1975 .

[12]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Generalized Utility Independence and Some Implications , 1975, Oper. Res..

[13]  Peter H. Farquhar,et al.  Errata to “A Survey of Multiattribute Utility Theory and Applications” , 1978 .

[14]  David E. Bell,et al.  Multiattribute Utility Functions: Decompositions Using Interpolation , 1979 .

[15]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions , 1979, Oper. Res..

[16]  John M. Miyamoto,et al.  Measurement foundations for multiattribute psychophysical theories based on first order polynomials , 1983 .

[17]  F. Radermacher,et al.  Substitution Decomposition for Discrete Structures and Connections with Combinatorial Optimization , 1984 .

[18]  Sadashiv Adiga,et al.  PC-Driven Expert Systems , 1987, IEEE Expert.