NONPARAMETRIC NUMERICAL APPROACHES TO PROBABILITY WEIGHTING FUNCTION CONSTRUCT FOR MANIFESTATION AND PREDICTION OF RISK PREFERENCES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probability weighting function (PWF) is the psychological probability of a decision-maker for objective probability, which reflects and predicts the risk preferences of decision-maker in behavioral decisionmaking. The existing approaches to PWF estimation generally include parametric methodologies to PWF construction and nonparametric elicitation of PWF. However, few of them explores the combination of parametric and nonparametric elicitation approaches to approximate PWF. To describe quantitatively risk preferences, the Newton interpolation, as a well-established mathematical approximation approach, is introduced to task-specifically match PWF under the frameworks of prospect theory and cumulative prospect theory with descriptive psychological analyses. The Newton interpolation serves as a nonparametric numerical approach to the estimation of PWF by fitting experimental preference points without imposing any specific parametric form assumptions. The elaborated nonparametric PWF model varies in accordance with the number of the experimental preference points elicitation in terms of its functional form. The introduction of Newton interpolation to PWF estimation into decision-making under risk will benefit to reflect and predict the risk preferences of decision-makers both at the aggregate and individual levels. The Newton interpolation-based nonparametric PWF model exhibits an inverse S-shaped PWF and obeys the fourfold pattern of decision-makers’ risk preferences as suggested by previous empirical analyses.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it