Ergodicity economics

Last updated

Ergodicity economics is a research programme aimed at reworking the theoretical foundations of economics in the context of ergodic theory. [1] The project's main goal is to understand how traditional economic theory, framed in terms of the expectation values of ensembles, changes when replacing expectation value averages with time averages. In particular, the programme is interested in understanding the effect of non-ergodic processes in economics, that is processes where the expectation value of an observable does not equal its time average.

Contents

Background

Ergodicity economics questions whether expected value is a useful indicator of performance over time. In doing so it builds on existing critiques of the use of expected value in the modeling of economic decisions. Such critiques started soon after the introduction of expected value in 1654. For instance, expected-utility theory was proposed in 1738 by Daniel Bernoulli [2] as a way of modeling behavior which is inconsistent with expected-value maximization. In 1956, John Kelly devised the Kelly criterion by optimizing the use of available information, and Leo Breiman later noted that this is equivalent to optimizing time-average performance, as opposed to expected value. [3]

The ergodicity economics research programme originates in two papers by Ole Peters in 2011, a theoretical physicist and current external professor at the Santa Fe Institute. [4] The first studied the problem of optimal leverage in finance and how this may be achieved by considering the non-ergodic properties of geometric brownian motion. [5] The second paper applied principles of non-ergodicity to propose a possible solution for the St. Petersburg paradox. [6] More recent work has suggested possible solutions for the equity premium puzzle, the insurance puzzle, gamble-selection, probability weighting, and has provided insights into the dynamics of income inequality. [7]


Relation to ergodic theory

Ergodic theory is a branch of mathematics which investigates the relationship between time averages and expected values (or, equivalently, ensemble averages) in dynamical systems and [[stochastic process]|stochastic processes]. Ergodicity economics inherits from this branch the probing of this relationship in stochastic processes used as economic models. Early economic theory was developed at a time when the expected value had been invented but its relation to the time average was unclear. No clear distinction was made between the two mathematical objects, which amounts to an implicit assumption of ergodicity.

Ergodicity economics explores what aspects of economics can be informed by avoiding this implicit assumption.

Critique of expected value

Mean values and expected values are used extensively in economic theory, most commonly as a summary statistic. One common critique of this practice is the sensitivity of mean values to outliers. Ergodicity economics focuses on a different critique and emphasizes the physical meaning of expected values as averages across a statistical ensemble of parallel systems. It insists on a physical justification when expected values are used. In essence, at least one of two conditions must hold:

In ergodicity economics, expected values are replaced, where necessary, by averages that account for the ergodicity or non-ergodicity of the observables involved.

Decision theory

Ergodicity economics emphasizes what happens to an agent's wealth over time . From this follows a possible decision theory where agents maximize the time-average growth rate of wealth. [8] [9] The functional form of the growth rate, , depends on the wealth process . In general, a growth rate takes the form , where the function , linearizes , such that growth rates evaluated at different times can be meaningfully compared.

Growth processes generally violate ergodicity, but their growth rates may nonetheless be ergodic. In this case, the time-average growth rate, can be computed as the rate of change of the expected value of , i.e.

. (1)

In this context, is called the ergodicity transformation.

Relation to classic decision theory

An influential class of models for economic decision-making is known as expected utility theory. The following specific model can be mapped to the growth-rate optimization highlighted by ergodicity economics. Here, agents evaluate monetary wealth according to a utility function , and it is postulated that decisions maximize the expected value of the change in utility,

. (2)

This model was proposed as an improvement of expected-value maximization, where agents maximize . A non-linear utility function allows the encoding of behavioral patterns not represented in expected-value maximization. Specifically, expected-utility maximizing agents can have idiosyncratic risk preferences. An agent specified by a convex utility function is more risk-seeking than an expected wealth maximizer, and a concave utility function implies greater risk aversion.

Comparing (2) to (1), we can identify the utility function with the linearization , and make the two expressions identical by dividing (2) by . Division by simply implements a preference for faster utility growth in the expected-utility-theory decision protocol.

This mapping shows that the two models will yield identical predictions if the utility function applied under expected-utility theory is the same as the ergodicity transformation, needed to compute an ergodic growth rate.

Ergodicity economics thus emphasizes the dynamic circumstances under which a decision is made, whereas expected-utility theory emphasizes idiosyncratic preferences to explain behavior. Different ergodicity transformations indicate different types of wealth dynamics, whereas different utility functions indicate different personal preferences. The mapping highlights the relationship between the two approaches, showing that differences in personal preferences can arise purely as a result of different dynamic contexts of decision makers.

Continuous example: Geometric Brownian motion

A simple example for an agent's wealth process, , is geometric Brownian motion (GBM), commonly used in mathematical finance and other fields. is said to follow GBM if it satisfies the stochastic differential equation

, (3)

where is the increment in a Wiener process, and ('drift') and ('volatility') are constants. Solving (3) gives

. (4)

In this case the ergodicity transformation is , as is easily verified: grows linearly in time.

Following the recipe laid out above, this leads to the time-average growth rate

. (5)

It follows that for geometric Brownian motion, maximizing the rate of change in the logarithmic utility function, , is equivalent to maximizing the time-average growth rate of wealth, i.e. what happens to the agent's wealth over time.

Stochastic processes other than (3) possess different ergodicity transformations, where growth-optimal agents maximize the expected value of utility functions other than the logarithm. Trivially, replacing (3) with additive dynamics implies a linear ergodicity transformation, and many similar pairs of dynamics and transformations can be derived.

Discrete example: multiplicative Coin Toss

A popular illustration of non-ergodicity in economic processes is a repeated multiplicative coin toss, an instance of the binomial multiplicative process. [10] It demonstrates how an expected-value analysis can indicate that a gamble is favorable although the gambler is guaranteed to lose over time.

Definition

In this thought experiment, discussed in, [7] a person participates in a simple game where they toss a fair coin. If the coin lands heads, the person gains 50% on their current wealth; if it lands tails, the person loses 40%.

The game shows the difference between the expected value of an investment, or bet, and the time-average or real-world outcome of repeatedly engaging in that bet over time.

Calculation of Expected Value

Denoting current wealth by , and the time when the payout is received by , we find that wealth after one round is given by the random variable , which takes the values (for heads) and (for tails), each with probability . The expected value of the gambler's wealth after one round is therefore

By induction, after rounds expected wealth is , increasing exponentially at 5% per round in the game.

This calculation shows that the game is favorable in expectation—its expected value increases with each round played.

Calculation of Time-Average

The time-average performance indicates what happens to the wealth of a single gambler who plays repeatedly, reinvesting their entire wealth every round. Due to compounding, after rounds the wealth will be

where we have written to denote the realized random factor by which wealth is multiplied in the round of the game (either for heads; or , for tails). Averaged over time, wealth has grown per round by a factor

Introducing the notation for the number of heads in a sequence of coin tosses we re-write this as

For any finite , the time-average per-round growth factor, , is a random variable. The long-time limit, found by letting the number of rounds diverge , provides a characteristic scalar which can be compared with the per-round growth factor of the expected value. The proportion of heads tossed then converges to the probability of heads (namely 1/2), and the time-average growth factor is

Discussion

The comparison between expected value and time-average performance illustrates an effect of broken ergodicity: over time, with probability one, wealth decreases by about 5% per round, in contrast to the increase by 5% per round of the expected value.

Coverage in the wider media

In December 2020, Bloomberg news published an article titled "Everything We’ve Learned About Modern Economic Theory Is Wrong" [11] discussing the implications of ergodicity in economics following the publication of a review of the subject in Nature Physics. [7] Morningstar covered the story to discuss the investment case for stock diversification. [12]

In the book Skin in the Game , Nassim Nicholas Taleb suggests that the ergodicity problem requires a rethinking of how economists use probabilities. [13] A summary of the arguments was published by Taleb in a Medium article in August 2017. [14]

In the book The End of Theory , Richard Bookstaber lists non-ergodicity as one of four characteristics of our economy that are part of financial crises, that conventional economics fails to adequately account for, and that any model of such crises needs to take adequate account of. [15] The other three are: computational irreducibility, emergent phenomena, and radical uncertainty.[ citation needed ]

In the book The Ergodic Investor and Entrepreneur , Boyd and Reardon tackle the practical implications of non-ergodic capital growth for investors and entrepreneurs, especially for those with a sustainability, circular economy, net positive, or regenerative focus. [16]

James White and Victor Haghani discuss the field of ergodicity economics in their book The Missing Billionaires . [17]

Criticisms

It has been claimed that expected utility theory implicitly assumes ergodicity in the sense that it optimizes an expected value which is only relevant to the long-term benefit of the decision-maker if the relevant observable is ergodic. [7] Doctor, Wakker, and Tang argue that this is wrong because such assumptions are “outside the scope of expected utility theory as a static theory”. [18] They further argue that ergodicity economics overemphasizes the importance of long-term growth as “the primary factor that explains economic phenomena,” and downplays the importance of individual preferences. They also caution against optimizing long-term growth inappropriately. An example is given of a short-term decision between A) a great loss incurred with certainty and B) a gain enjoyed with almost-certainty paired with an even greater loss at negligible probability. In the example the long-term growth rate favors the certain loss and seems an inappropriate criterion for the short-term decision horizon. Finally, an experiment by Meder and colleagues claims to find that individual risk preferences change with dynamical conditions in ways predicted by ergodicity economics. [19] Doctor, Wakker, and Tang criticize the experiment for being confounded by differences in ambiguity and the complexity of probability calculations. Further, they criticize the analysis for applying static expected utility theory models to a context where dynamic versions are more appropriate. In support of this, Goldstein claims to show that multi-period EUT predicts a similar change in risk preferences as observed in the experiment. [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Entropy (information theory)</span> Expected amount of information needed to specify the output of a stochastic data source

In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. Given a discrete random variable , which takes values in the set and is distributed according to , the entropy is where denotes the sum over the variable's possible values. The choice of base for , the logarithm, varies for different applications. Base 2 gives the unit of bits, while base e gives "natural units" nat, and base 10 gives units of "dits", "bans", or "hartleys". An equivalent definition of entropy is the expected value of the self-information of a variable.

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is the most commonly-used solution concept for non-cooperative games. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where no player could gain by changing their own strategy. The idea of Nash equilibrium dates back to the time of Cournot, who in 1838 applied it to his model of competition in an oligopoly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pareto distribution</span> Probability distribution

The Pareto distribution, named after the Italian civil engineer, economist, and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, is a power-law probability distribution that is used in description of social, quality control, scientific, geophysical, actuarial, and many other types of observable phenomena; the principle originally applied to describing the distribution of wealth in a society, fitting the trend that a large portion of wealth is held by a small fraction of the population. The Pareto principle or "80-20 rule" stating that 80% of outcomes are due to 20% of causes was named in honour of Pareto, but the concepts are distinct, and only Pareto distributions with shape value of log45 ≈ 1.16 precisely reflect it. Empirical observation has shown that this 80-20 distribution fits a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena and human activities.

The Black–Scholes or Black–Scholes–Merton model is a mathematical model for the dynamics of a financial market containing derivative investment instruments. From the parabolic partial differential equation in the model, known as the Black–Scholes equation, one can deduce the Black–Scholes formula, which gives a theoretical estimate of the price of European-style options and shows that the option has a unique price given the risk of the security and its expected return. The equation and model are named after economists Fischer Black and Myron Scholes. Robert C. Merton, who first wrote an academic paper on the subject, is sometimes also credited.

In statistics, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is a method of estimating the parameters of an assumed probability distribution, given some observed data. This is achieved by maximizing a likelihood function so that, under the assumed statistical model, the observed data is most probable. The point in the parameter space that maximizes the likelihood function is called the maximum likelihood estimate. The logic of maximum likelihood is both intuitive and flexible, and as such the method has become a dominant means of statistical inference.

In mathematical finance, the Greeks are the quantities representing the sensitivity of the price of a derivative instrument such as an option to changes in one or more underlying parameters on which the value of an instrument or portfolio of financial instruments is dependent. The name is used because the most common of these sensitivities are denoted by Greek letters. Collectively these have also been called the risk sensitivities, risk measures or hedge parameters.

The Ising model, named after the physicists Ernst Ising and Wilhelm Lenz, is a mathematical model of ferromagnetism in statistical mechanics. The model consists of discrete variables that represent magnetic dipole moments of atomic "spins" that can be in one of two states. The spins are arranged in a graph, usually a lattice, allowing each spin to interact with its neighbors. Neighboring spins that agree have a lower energy than those that disagree; the system tends to the lowest energy but heat disturbs this tendency, thus creating the possibility of different structural phases. The model allows the identification of phase transitions as a simplified model of reality. The two-dimensional square-lattice Ising model is one of the simplest statistical models to show a phase transition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Partition function (statistical mechanics)</span> Function in thermodynamics and statistical physics

In physics, a partition function describes the statistical properties of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium. Partition functions are functions of the thermodynamic state variables, such as the temperature and volume. Most of the aggregate thermodynamic variables of the system, such as the total energy, free energy, entropy, and pressure, can be expressed in terms of the partition function or its derivatives. The partition function is dimensionless.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">St. Petersburg paradox</span> Paradox involving a game with repeated coin flipping

The St. Petersburg paradox or St. Petersburg lottery is a paradox involving the game of flipping a coin where the expected payoff of the lottery game is infinite but nevertheless seems to be worth only a very small amount to the participants. The St. Petersburg paradox is a situation where a naïve decision criterion that takes only the expected value into account predicts a course of action that presumably no actual person would be willing to take. Several resolutions to the paradox have been proposed, including the impossible amount of money a casino would need to continue the game indefinitely.

In mathematical statistics, the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence, denoted , is a type of statistical distance: a measure of how one probability distribution P is different from a second, reference probability distribution Q. Mathematically, it is defined as

The equilibrium constant of a chemical reaction is the value of its reaction quotient at chemical equilibrium, a state approached by a dynamic chemical system after sufficient time has elapsed at which its composition has no measurable tendency towards further change. For a given set of reaction conditions, the equilibrium constant is independent of the initial analytical concentrations of the reactant and product species in the mixture. Thus, given the initial composition of a system, known equilibrium constant values can be used to determine the composition of the system at equilibrium. However, reaction parameters like temperature, solvent, and ionic strength may all influence the value of the equilibrium constant.

The birth–death process is a special case of continuous-time Markov process where the state transitions are of only two types: "births", which increase the state variable by one and "deaths", which decrease the state by one. It was introduced by William Feller. The model's name comes from a common application, the use of such models to represent the current size of a population where the transitions are literal births and deaths. Birth–death processes have many applications in demography, queueing theory, performance engineering, epidemiology, biology and other areas. They may be used, for example, to study the evolution of bacteria, the number of people with a disease within a population, or the number of customers in line at the supermarket.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kelly criterion</span> Formula for bet sizing that maximizes the expected logarithmic value

In probability theory, the Kelly criterion is a formula for sizing a sequence of bets by maximizing the long-term expected value of the logarithm of wealth, which is equivalent to maximizing the long-term expected geometric growth rate. John Larry Kelly Jr., a researcher at Bell Labs, described the criterion in 1956.

The Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans model, or Ramsey growth model, is a neoclassical model of economic growth based primarily on the work of Frank P. Ramsey, with significant extensions by David Cass and Tjalling Koopmans. The Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans model differs from the Solow–Swan model in that the choice of consumption is explicitly microfounded at a point in time and so endogenizes the savings rate. As a result, unlike in the Solow–Swan model, the saving rate may not be constant along the transition to the long run steady state. Another implication of the model is that the outcome is Pareto optimal or Pareto efficient.

In estimation theory and decision theory, a Bayes estimator or a Bayes action is an estimator or decision rule that minimizes the posterior expected value of a loss function. Equivalently, it maximizes the posterior expectation of a utility function. An alternative way of formulating an estimator within Bayesian statistics is maximum a posteriori estimation.

Expected shortfall (ES) is a risk measure—a concept used in the field of financial risk measurement to evaluate the market risk or credit risk of a portfolio. The "expected shortfall at q% level" is the expected return on the portfolio in the worst of cases. ES is an alternative to value at risk that is more sensitive to the shape of the tail of the loss distribution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black–Scholes equation</span> Partial differential equation in mathematical finance

In mathematical finance, the Black–Scholes equation, also called the Black–Scholes–Merton equation, is a partial differential equation (PDE) governing the price evolution of derivatives under the Black–Scholes model. Broadly speaking, the term may refer to a similar PDE that can be derived for a variety of options, or more generally, derivatives.

In mathematics and information theory, Sanov's theorem gives a bound on the probability of observing an atypical sequence of samples from a given probability distribution. In the language of large deviations theory, Sanov's theorem identifies the rate function for large deviations of the empirical measure of a sequence of i.i.d. random variables.

Classical nucleation theory (CNT) is the most common theoretical model used to quantitatively study the kinetics of nucleation.

Adding controlled noise from predetermined distributions is a way of designing differentially private mechanisms. This technique is useful for designing private mechanisms for real-valued functions on sensitive data. Some commonly used distributions for adding noise include Laplace and Gaussian distributions.

References

  1. "Economics – London Mathematical Laboratory" . Retrieved 1 January 2021.
  2. Bernoulli, Daniel; originally published in 1738 ("Specimen Theoriae Novae de Mensura Sortis", "Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae"); translated by Dr. Louise Sommer (January 1954). "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". Econometrica . 22 (1): 23–36. doi:10.2307/1909829. JSTOR   1909829.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. Breiman, Leo (1961). "Optimal gambling systems for favorable games". Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical. Statistics and Probability, 4.1. 4 (1): 65–78.
  4. "Ole Peters | Santa Fe Institute". www.santafe.edu. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
  5. Peters, Ole (November 2011). "Optimal leverage from non-ergodicity". Quantitative Finance. 11 (11): 1593–1602. arXiv: 0902.2965 . doi: 10.1080/14697688.2010.513338 .
  6. Peters, Ole (13 December 2011). "The time resolution of the St Petersburg paradox". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 369 (1956): 4913–4931. arXiv: 1011.4404 . Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.4913P. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0065 . PMC   3270388 . PMID   22042904.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Peters, Ole (December 2019). "The ergodicity problem in economics". Nature Physics. 15 (12): 1216–1221. Bibcode:2019NatPh..15.1216P. doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0732-0 .
  8. Peters, Ole; Adamou, Alexander (28 February 2021). "The time interpretation of expected utility theory". arXiv: 1801.03680 [q-fin.EC].
  9. Carr, Peter; Cherubini, Umberto (2020). "Generalized Compounding and Growth Optimal Portfolios: Reconciling Kelly and Samuelson". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3529729.
  10. Redner, Sidney (March 1990). "Random multiplicative process: an elementary tutorial". Am. J. Phys. 58 (3): 267–273. Bibcode:1990AmJPh..58..267R. doi:10.1119/1.16497.
  11. Kochkodin, Brandon (11 December 2020). "Everything We've Learned About Modern Economic Theory Is Wrong". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
  12. Rekenthaler, John (17 December 2020). "Why Most Stocks are Losers". Morningstar, Inc. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
  13. Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (20 February 2018). Skin in the game. London. ISBN   9780241247488.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (15 August 2018). "The Logic of Risk Taking". Medium. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
  15. Bookstaber, Richard (2 May 2017). The End of Theory. Princeton. ISBN   9780691169019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  16. Boyd, Graham; Reardon, Jack (1 May 2023). The Ergodic Investor and Entrepreneur. London. ISBN   9781913629199.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  17. Haghani, Victor; White, James (2023). The Missing Billionaires: A Guide to Better Financial Decisions (1st ed.). Wiley. ISBN   978-1119747918.
  18. Doctor, Jason N.; Wakker, Peter P.; Wang, Tong V. (December 2020). "Economists' views on the ergodicity problem". Nature Physics. 16 (12): 1168. Bibcode:2020NatPh..16.1168D. doi:10.1038/s41567-020-01106-x. S2CID   229412228.
  19. Meder, David; Rabe, Finn; Morville, Tobias; Madsen, Kristoffer H.; Koudahl, Magnus T.; Dolan, Ray J.; Siebner, Hartwig R.; Hulme, Oliver J. (2021). "Ergodicity-breaking reveals time optimal decision making in humans". PLOS Computational Biology. 17 (9): e1009217. arXiv: 1906.04652 . Bibcode:2021PLSCB..17E9217M. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009217 . PMC   8454984 . PMID   34499635.
  20. Goldstein, Adam (31 January 2020). "Did Ergodicity Economics and the Copenhagen Experiment Really Falsify Expected Utility Theory?". Medium.