Optimal procurement and contracting with research and development

Government procurement of a new good or service is a process that usually includes basic research, development, and production. Empirical evidences indicate that investments in research and development (R and D) before production are significant in many defense procurements. Thus, optimal procurement policy should not be only to select the most efficient producer, but also to induce the contractors to design the best product and to develop the best technology. It is difficult to apply the current economic theory of optimal procurement and contracting, which has emphasized production, but ignored R and D, to many cases of procurement.

In this thesis, I provide basic models of both R and D and production in the procurement process where a number of firms invest in private R and D and compete for a government contract. R and D is modeled as a stochastic cost-reduction process. The government is considered both as a profit-maximizer and a procurement cost minimizer. In comparison to the literature, the following results derived from my models are significant. First, R and D matters in procurement contracting. When offering the optimal contract the government will be better off if it correctly takes into account costly private R and D investment. Second, competition matters. The optimal contract and the total equilibrium R and D expenditures vary with the number of firms. The government usually does not prefer infinite competition among firms. Instead, it prefers free entry of firms. Third, under a R and D technology with the constant marginal returns-to-scale, it is socially optimal to have only one firm to conduct all of the R and D and production. Fourth, in an independent private values environment with risk-neutral firms, an informed government should select one of four standard auction procedures with an appropriate announced reserve price, acting as if it does not have any private information.

Efficient methods for empirical tests of behavioral economics theories in laboratory and field experiments

In the quest for a descriptive theory of decision-making, the rational actor model in economics imposes rather unrealistic expectations and abilities on human decision makers. The further we move from idealized scenarios, such as perfectly competitive markets, and ambitiously extend the reach of the theory to describe everyday decision making situations, the less sense these assumptions make. Behavioural economics has instead proposed models based on assumptions that are more psychologically realistic, with the aim of gaining more precision and descriptive power. Increased psychological realism, however, comes at the cost of a greater number of parameters and model complexity. Now there are a plethora of models, based on different assumptions, applicable in differing contextual settings, and selecting the right model to use tends to be an ad-hoc process. In this thesis, we develop optimal experimental design methods and evaluate different behavioral theories against evidence from lab and field experiments.

We look at evidence from controlled laboratory experiments. Subjects are presented with choices between monetary gambles or lotteries. Different decision-making theories evaluate the choices differently and would make distinct predictions about the subjects' choices. Theories whose predictions are inconsistent with the actual choices can be systematically eliminated. Behavioural theories can have multiple parameters requiring complex experimental designs with a very large number of possible choice tests. This imposes computational and economic constraints on using classical experimental design methods. We develop a methodology of adaptive tests: Bayesian Rapid Optimal Adaptive Designs (BROAD) that sequentially chooses the "most informative" test at each stage, and based on the response updates its posterior beliefs over the theories, which informs the next most informative test to run. BROAD utilizes the Equivalent Class Edge Cutting (EC²) criteria to select tests. We prove that the EC² criteria is adaptively submodular, which allows us to prove theoretical guarantees against the Bayes-optimal testing sequence even in the presence of noisy responses. In simulated ground-truth experiments, we find that the EC² criteria recovers the true hypotheses with significantly fewer tests than more widely used criteria such as Information Gain and Generalized Binary Search. We show, theoretically as well as experimentally, that surprisingly these popular criteria can perform poorly in the presence of noise, or subject errors. Furthermore, we use the adaptive submodular property of EC² to implement an accelerated greedy version of BROAD which leads to orders of magnitude speedup over other methods.

We use BROAD to perform two experiments. First, we compare the main classes of theories for decision-making under risk, namely: expected value, prospect theory, constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) and moments models. Subjects are given an initial endowment, and sequentially presented choices between two lotteries, with the possibility of losses. The lotteries are selected using BROAD, and 57 subjects from Caltech and UCLA are incentivized by randomly realizing one of the lotteries chosen. Aggregate posterior probabilities over the theories show limited evidence in favour of CRRA and moments' models. Classifying the subjects into types showed that most subjects are described by prospect theory, followed by expected value. Adaptive experimental design raises the possibility that subjects could engage in strategic manipulation, i.e. subjects could mask their true preferences and choose differently in order to obtain more favourable tests in later rounds thereby increasing their payoffs. We pay close attention to this problem; strategic manipulation is ruled out since it is infeasible in practice, and also since we do not find any signatures of it in our data.

In the second experiment, we compare the main theories of time preference: exponential discounting, hyperbolic discounting, "present bias" models: quasi-hyperbolic (α, β) discounting and fixed cost discounting, and generalized-hyperbolic discounting. 40 subjects from UCLA were given choices between 2 options: a smaller but more immediate payoff versus a larger but later payoff. We found very limited evidence for present bias models and hyperbolic discounting, and most subjects were classified as generalized hyperbolic discounting types, followed by exponential discounting.

In these models the passage of time is linear. We instead consider a psychological model where the perception of time is subjective. We prove that when the biological (subjective) time is positively dependent, it gives rise to hyperbolic discounting and temporal choice inconsistency.

We also test the predictions of behavioral theories in the "wild". We pay attention to prospect theory, which emerged as the dominant theory in our lab experiments of risky choice. Loss aversion and reference dependence predicts that consumers will behave in a uniquely distinct way than the standard rational model predicts. Specifically, loss aversion predicts that when an item is being offered at a discount, the demand for it will be greater than that explained by its price elasticity. Even more importantly, when the item is no longer discounted, demand for its close substitute would increase excessively. We tested this prediction using a discrete choice model with loss-averse utility function on data from a large eCommerce retailer. Not only did we identify loss aversion, but we also found that the effect decreased with consumers' experience. We outline the policy implications that consumer loss aversion entails, and strategies for competitive pricing.

In future work, BROAD can be widely applicable for testing different behavioural models, e.g. in social preference and game theory, and in different contextual settings. Additional measurements beyond choice data, including biological measurements such as skin conductance, can be used to more rapidly eliminate hypothesis and speed up model comparison. Discrete choice models also provide a framework for testing behavioural models with field data, and encourage combined lab-field experiments.

Efficient methods for stochastic optimal control

The Hamilton Jacobi Bellman (HJB) equation is central to stochastic optimal control (SOC) theory, yielding the optimal solution to general problems specified by known dynamics and a specified cost functional. Given the assumption of quadratic cost on the control input, it is well known that the HJB reduces to a particular partial differential equation (PDE). While powerful, this reduction is not commonly used as the PDE is of second order, is nonlinear, and examples exist where the problem may not have a solution in a classical sense. Furthermore, each state of the system appears as another dimension of the PDE, giving rise to the curse of dimensionality. Since the number of degrees of freedom required to solve the optimal control problem grows exponentially with dimension, the problem becomes intractable for systems with all but modest dimension.

In the last decade researchers have found that under certain, fairly non-restrictive structural assumptions, the HJB may be transformed into a linear PDE, with an interesting analogue in the discretized domain of Markov Decision Processes (MDP). The work presented in this thesis uses the linearity of this particular form of the HJB PDE to push the computational boundaries of stochastic optimal control.

This is done by crafting together previously disjoint lines of research in computation. The first of these is the use of Sum of Squares (SOS) techniques for synthesis of control policies. A candidate polynomial with variable coefficients is proposed as the solution to the stochastic optimal control problem. An SOS relaxation is then taken to the partial differential constraints, leading to a hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations with improving sub-optimality gap. The resulting approximate solutions are shown to be guaranteed over- and under-approximations for the optimal value function. It is shown that these results extend to arbitrary parabolic and elliptic PDEs, yielding a novel method for Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) of systems governed by partial differential constraints. Domain decomposition techniques are also made available, allowing for such problems to be solved via parallelization and low-order polynomials.

The optimization-based SOS technique is then contrasted with the Separated Representation (SR) approach from the applied mathematics community. The technique allows for systems of equations to be solved through a low-rank decomposition that results in algorithms that scale linearly with dimensionality. Its application in stochastic optimal control allows for previously uncomputable problems to be solved quickly, scaling to such complex systems as the Quadcopter and VTOL aircraft. This technique may be combined with the SOS approach, yielding not only a numerical technique, but also an analytical one that allows for entirely new classes of systems to be studied and for stability properties to be guaranteed.

The analysis of the linear HJB is completed by the study of its implications in application. It is shown that the HJB and a popular technique in robotics, the use of navigation functions, sit on opposite ends of a spectrum of optimization problems, upon which tradeoffs may be made in problem complexity. Analytical solutions to the HJB in these settings are available in simplified domains, yielding guidance towards optimality for approximation schemes. Finally, the use of HJB equations in temporal multi-task planning problems is investigated. It is demonstrated that such problems are reducible to a sequence of SOC problems linked via boundary conditions. The linearity of the PDE allows us to pre-compute control policy primitives and then compose them, at essentially zero cost, to satisfy a complex temporal logic specification.