Decision Analysis with Cumulative Prospect Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals sometimes express preferences that do not follow expected utility theory. Cumulative prospect theory adjusts for some phenomena by using decision weights rather than probabilities when analyzing a decision tree. METHODS: The authors examined how probability transformations from cumulative prospect theory might alter a decision analysis of a prophylactic therapy in AIDS, eliciting utilities from patients with HIV infection (n = 75) and calculating expected outcomes using an established Markov model. They next focused on transformations of three sets of probabilities: 1) the probabilities used in calculating standard-gamble utility scores; 2) the probabilities of being in discrete Markov states; 3) the probabilities of transitioning between Markov states. RESULTS: The same prophylaxis strategy yielded the highest quality-adjusted survival under all transformations. For the average patient, prophylaxis appeared relatively less advantageous when standard-gamble utilities were transformed. Prophylaxis appeared relatively more advantageous when state probabilities were transformed and relatively less advantageous when transition probabilities were transformed. Transforming standard-gamble and transition probabilities simultaneously decreased the gain from prophylaxis by almost half. Sensitivity analysis indicated that even near-linear probability weighting transformations could substantially alter quality-adjusted survival estimates. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of benefit estimated in a decision-analytic model can change significantly after using cumulative prospect theory. Incorporating cumulative prospect theory into decision analysis can provide a form of sensitivity analysis and may help describe when people deviate from expected utility theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".