An extension of the continual reassessment method using decision theory

The primary goal of a phase I trial is to find the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of a treatment. The MTD is usually defined in terms of a tolerable probability, q*, of toxicity. Our objective is to find the highest dose with toxicity risk that does not exceed q*, a criterion that is often desired in designing phase I trials. This criterion differs from that of finding the dose with toxicity risk closest to q*, that is used in methods such as the continual reassessment method. We use the theory of decision processes to find optimal sequential designs that maximize the expected number of patients within the trial allocated to the highest dose with toxicity not exceeding q*, among the doses under consideration. The proposed method is very general in the sense that criteria other than the one considered here can be optimized and that optimal dose assignment can be defined in terms of patients within or outside the trial. It includes as an important special case the continual reassessment method. Numerical study indicates the strategy compares favourably with other phase I designs.

Essays in Behavioral Decision Theory

This thesis studies decision making under uncertainty and how economic agents respond to information. The classic model of subjective expected utility and Bayesian updating is often at odds with empirical and experimental results; people exhibit systematic biases in information processing and often exhibit aversion to ambiguity. The aim of this work is to develop simple models that capture observed biases and study their economic implications.

In the first chapter I present an axiomatic model of cognitive dissonance, in which an agent's response to information explicitly depends upon past actions. I introduce novel behavioral axioms and derive a representation in which beliefs are directionally updated. The agent twists the information and overweights states in which his past actions provide a higher payoff. I then characterize two special cases of the representation. In the first case, the agent distorts the likelihood ratio of two states by a function of the utility values of the previous action in those states. In the second case, the agent's posterior beliefs are a convex combination of the Bayesian belief and the one which maximizes the conditional value of the previous action. Within the second case a unique parameter captures the agent's sensitivity to dissonance, and I characterize a way to compare sensitivity to dissonance between individuals. Lastly, I develop several simple applications and show that cognitive dissonance contributes to the equity premium and price volatility, asymmetric reaction to news, and belief polarization.

The second chapter characterizes a decision maker with sticky beliefs. That is, a decision maker who does not update enough in response to information, where enough means as a Bayesian decision maker would. This chapter provides axiomatic foundations for sticky beliefs by weakening the standard axioms of dynamic consistency and consequentialism. I derive a representation in which updated beliefs are a convex combination of the prior and the Bayesian posterior. A unique parameter captures the weight on the prior and is interpreted as the agent's measure of belief stickiness or conservatism bias. This parameter is endogenously identified from preferences and is easily elicited from experimental data.

The third chapter deals with updating in the face of ambiguity, using the framework of Gilboa and Schmeidler. There is no consensus on the correct way way to update a set of priors. Current methods either do not allow a decision maker to make an inference about her priors or require an extreme level of inference. In this chapter I propose and axiomatize a general model of updating a set of priors. A decision maker who updates her beliefs in accordance with the model can be thought of as one that chooses a threshold that is used to determine whether a prior is plausible, given some observation. She retains the plausible priors and applies Bayes' rule. This model includes generalized Bayesian updating and maximum likelihood updating as special cases.

Decision theory and real estate development: a note on uncertainty

Real estate development appraisal is a quantification of future expectations. The appraisal model relies upon the valuer/developer having an understanding of the future in terms of the future marketability of the completed development and the future cost of development. In some cases the developer has some degree of control over the possible variation in the variables, as with the cost of construction through the choice of specification. However, other variables, such as the sale price of the final product, are totally dependent upon the vagaries of the market at the completion date. To try to address the risk of a different outcome to the one expected (modelled) the developer will often carry out a sensitivity analysis on the development. However, traditional sensitivity analysis has generally only looked at the best and worst scenarios and has focused on the anticipated or expected outcomes. This does not take into account uncertainty and the range of outcomes that can happen. A fuller analysis should include examination of the uncertainties in each of the components of the appraisal and account for the appropriate distributions of the variables. Similarly, as many of the variables in the model are not independent, the variables need to be correlated. This requires a standardised approach and we suggest that the use of a generic forecasting software package, in this case Crystal Ball, allows the analyst to work with an existing development appraisal model set up in Excel (or other spreadsheet) and to work with a predetermined set of probability distributions. Without a full knowledge of risk, developers are unable to determine the anticipated level of return that should be sought to compensate for the risk. This model allows the user a better understanding of the possible outcomes for the development. Ultimately the final decision will be made relative to current expectations and current business constraints, but by assessing the upside and downside risks more appropriately, the decision maker should be better placed to make a more informed and “better”.

Application of Decision Theory methods for a Community of Madrid Soil classification case

A land classification method was designed for the Community of Madrid (CM), which has lands suitable for either agriculture use or natural spaces. The process started from an extensive previous CM study that contains sets of land attributes with data for 122 types and a minimum-requirements method providing a land quality classification (SQ) for each land. Borrowing some tools from Operations Research (OR) and from Decision Science, that SQ has been complemented by an additive valuation method that involves a more restricted set of 13 representative attributes analysed using Attribute Valuation Functions to obtain a quality index, QI, and by an original composite method that uses a fuzzy set procedure to obtain a combined quality index, CQI, that contains relevant information from both the SQ and the QI methods.

Some past decision theory models for euro construction model codes and for road drainage in Spain, and modest hints with multi-criteria methods for agro and environmental assurance

The authors are from UPM and are relatively grouped, and all have intervened in different academic or real cases on the subject, at different times as being of different age. With precedent from E. Torroja and A. Páez in Madrid Spain Safety Probabilistic models for concrete about 1957, now in ICOSSAR conferences, author J.M. Antón involved since autumn 1967 for euro-steel construction in CECM produced a math model for independent load superposition reductions, and using it a load coefficient pattern for codes in Rome Feb. 1969, practically adopted for European constructions, giving in JCSS Lisbon Feb. 1974 suggestion of union for concrete-steel-al.. That model uses model for loads like Gumbel type I, for 50 years for one type of load, reduced to 1 year to be added to other independent loads, the sum set in Gumbel theories to 50 years return period, there are parallel models. A complete reliability system was produced, including non linear effects as from buckling, phenomena considered somehow in actual Construction Eurocodes produced from Model Codes. The system was considered by author in CEB in presence of Hydraulic effects from rivers, floods, sea, in reference with actual practice. When redacting a Road Drainage Norm in MOPU Spain an optimization model was realized by authors giving a way to determine the figure of Return Period, 10 to 50 years, for the cases of hydraulic flows to be considered in road drainage. Satisfactory examples were a stream in SE of Spain with Gumbel Type I model and a paper of Ven Te Chow with Mississippi in Keokuk using Gumbel type II, and the model can be modernized with more varied extreme laws. In fact in the MOPU drainage norm the redacting commission acted also as expert to set a table of return periods for elements of road drainage, in fact as a multi-criteria complex decision system. These precedent ideas were used e.g. in wide Codes, indicated in symposia or meetings, but not published in journals in English, and a condensate of contributions of authors is presented. The authors are somehow involved in optimization for hydraulic and agro planning, and give modest hints of intended applications in presence of agro and environment planning as a selection of the criteria and utility functions involved in bayesian, multi-criteria or mixed decision systems. Modest consideration is made of changing in climate, and on the production and commercial systems, and on others as social and financial.

Notes on decision theory.

"These notes were prepared at Cornell University from lectures given in Mathematics 742 in 1953 ... and were recorded by J. Sacks. The notes are intended only for the convenience of the student and are not intended to be considered as a text on the subject matter. These notes were mimeographed under a contract with the Office of Naval Research."

Decision theory to support evacuation in advance of catastrophic disaster including modular influence diagrams and spatial data analysis.

DUE TO INCOMPLETE PAPERWORK, ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

Developing Collective Teaching Computer Software for the Course “Decision Theory”

Improvement of training students using modern information technologies, like collective developing teaching computer software, is discussed. Organizational, technical, technological advices are given. Experience of using information technologies in educational course “Decision Theory” is described.