Computational Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 195–211 | Cite as

Simulation Analysis for Choice of Binary Lotteries

  • Ichiro Nishizaki
  • Tomohiro Hayashida


In this paper, we discuss the development of a simulation system with artificial autonomous adaptive agents that select one out of a given pair of binary lotteries, as represented by probability distributions over two outcomes. The agent’s decisions are made by a learning classifier system, and after classifying the information of a given pair of binary lotteries, the agent chooses one of them. The condition part of a classifier consists of two types of conditions: the conditions identifying probabilities and payoffs of a given pair of binary lotteries, and the conditions identifying characteristics of the lotteries known by several models that describe the behavioral regularities of choices under risk. We compare the result of the simulation with that of the experiment by Selten et al. (Theory Decis 46:211–249, 1999), and demonstrate the similarity between them. From the similarity, we consider a mechanism of human choices under risk. Finally, we examine the possibility of controlling a subject’s preference with respect to risky events using the lottery ticket procedure in laboratory experiments.


Choice Lottery Ticket Risk Multi-agent system Simulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allais, M., Hagen, O. (Eds.) (1979) Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlin P. S. (1992) Violations of the reduction and independence axioms in Allais-type and common-ratio effect experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 19: 213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conover W. J. (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Holland J. H., Miller J. H. (1991) Adaptive intelligent agents in economic theory. American Economic Review 81: 365–370Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Karmarkar U. S. (1978) Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21: 61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Luce R. D. (1956) Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24: 178–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nishizaki I. (2007) A general framework of agent-based simulation for analyzing behavior of players in games. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology 2007/4: 28–35Google Scholar
  9. Nishizaki I., Katagiri H., Oyama T. (2009) Simulation analysis using multi-agent systems for social norms. Computational Economics 34: 37–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roth A. E., Malouf M. W. K. (1979) Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review 86: 574–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth A. E., Murninghan J. K. (1982) The role of information in Bargaining: An experimental study. Econometrica 50: 1123–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth A. E., Schoumaker F. (1983) Expectations and reputations in bargaining: An experimental study. American Economic Review 73: 362–372Google Scholar
  13. Selten R., Sadrieh A., Abbink K. (1999) Money does not induce risk neutral behavior, but binary lotteries do even worse. Theory and Decision 46: 211–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith A. B. C. (1961) Consistency in statistical inference and decision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 23: 1–25Google Scholar
  15. Sutton R. S., Barto A. G. (1998) Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1944) Theory of games and economics behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Walker J. M., Smith V. L., Cox J. C. (1990) Inducing risk-neutral preferences: An examination in a controlled market environment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3: 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson S. W. (1995) Classifier fitness based on accuracy. Evolutionary Computation 2: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical, Systems and Mathematical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations