Utility representation theorem

Last updated January 29, 2024

In economics, a utility representation theorem asserts that, under certain conditions, a preference ordering can be represented by a real-valued utility function, such that option A is preferred to option B if and only if the utility of A is larger than that of B.

Background

Suppose a person is asked questions of the form "Do you prefer A or B?" (when A and B can be options, actions to take, states of the world, consumption bundles, etc.). If the agent prefers A to B, we write $A\succ B$ . The set of all such preference-pairs forms the person's preference relation.

Instead of recording the person's preferences between every pair of options, it would be much more convenient to have a single utility function - a function u that assigns a real number to each option, such that $u(A)>u(B)$ if and only if $A\succ B$ .

Not every preference-relation has a utility-function representation. For example, if the relation is not transitive (the agent prefers A to B, B to C, and C to A), then it has no utility representation, since any such utility function would have to satisfy $u(A)>u(B)>u(C)>u(A)$ , which is impossible.

A utility representation theorem gives conditions on a preference relation, that are sufficient for the existence of a utility representation.

Often, one would like the representing function u to satisfy additional conditions, such as continuity. This requires additional conditions on the preference relation.

Definitions

The set of options is a topological space denoted by X. In some cases we assume that X is also a metric space; in particular, X can be a subset of a Euclidean space R^m, such that each coordinate in {1,..., m} represents a commodity, and each m-vector in X represents a possible consumption bundle.

Preference relations

A preference relation is a subset of $X\times X$ . It is denoted by either $\succ$ or $\succeq$ :

The notation $\succ$ is used when the relation is strict, that is, $A\succ B$ means that option A is strictly better than option B. In this case, the relation should be irreflexive, that is, $A\succ A$ does not hold. It should also be asymmetric, that is, $A\succ B$ implies that not $B\succ A$ .
The notation $\succeq$ is used when the relation is weak, that is, $A\succeq B$ means that option A is at least as good as option B (A may be equivalent to B, or better than B). In this case, the relation should be reflexive, that is, $A\succeq A$ always holds.

Given a weak preference relation $\succeq$ , one can define its "strict part" $\succ$ and "indifference part" $\simeq$ as follows:

$A\succ B$ if and only if $A\succeq B$ and not $B\succeq A$ .
$A\simeq B$ if and only if $A\succeq B$ and $B\succeq A$ .

Given a strict preference relation $\succ$ , one can define its "weak part" $\succeq$ and "indifference part" $\simeq$ as follows:

$A\succeq B$ if and only if not $B\succ A$ ;
$A\simeq B$ if and only if not $B\succ A$ and not $A\succ B$ .

For every option $A\in X$ , we define the contour sets at A:

Given a weak preference relation $\succeq$ $Utility representation theorem$ , the weak upper contour set at A is the set of all options that are at least as good as A: $\{B\in X:B\succeq A\}$ $Utility representation theorem$ . The weak lower contour set at A is the set of all options that are at most as good as A: $\{B\in X:A\succeq B\}$ $Utility representation theorem$ .
- A weak preference relation is called continuous if its contour sets are topologically closed.
Similarly, given a strict preference relation $\succ$ $Utility representation theorem$ , the strict upper contour set at A is the set of all options better than A: $\{B\in X:B\succ A\}$ $Utility representation theorem$ , and the strict lower contour set at A is the set of all options worse than A: $\{B\in X:A\succ B\}$ $Utility representation theorem$ .
- A strict preference relation is called continuous if its contour sets are topologically open.

Sometimes, the above continuity notions are called semicontinuous, and a $\succeq$ is called continuous if it is a closed subset of $X\times X$ .^[1]

A preference-relation is called:

Countable - if the set of equivalence classes of the indiffference relation $\simeq$ is countable.
Separable - if there exists a countable subset $Z\subseteq X$ such that for every pair $A\succ B$ , there is an element $z_{i}\in Z$ that separates them, that is, $A\succ z_{i}\succ B$ (an analogous definition exists for weak relations).

As an example, the strict order ">" on real numbers is separable, but not countable.

Utility functions

A utility function is a function $u:X\to \mathbb {R}$ .

A utility function u is said to represent a strict preference relation $\succ$ , if $u(A)>u(B)\iff A\succ B$ .
A utility function u is said to represent a weak preference relation $\succeq$ , if $u(A)\geq u(B)\iff A\succeq B$ .

Complete preference relations

Debreu^[2]^[3] proved the existence of a contiuous representation of a weak preference relation $\succeq$ satisfying the following conditions:

Reflexive and Transitive;
Complete, that is, for every two options A, B in X, either $A\succeq B$ or $B\succeq A$ or both;
For all $A\in X$ , both the upper and the lower weak contour sets are topologically closed;
The space X is second-countable. This means that there is a countable set S of open sets, such that every open set in X is the union of sets of the class S.^[4] Second-countability is implied by the following properties (from weaker to stronger):
- The space X is separable and connected.
- The relation $\succeq$ is separable.
- The relation $\succeq$ is countable.

Jaffray^[5] gives an elementary proof to the existence of a continuous utility function.

Incomplete preference relations

Preferences are called incomplete when some options are incomparable, that is, neither $A\succeq B$ nor $B\succeq A$ holds. This case is denoted by $A\bowtie B$ . Since real numbers are always comparable, it is impossible to have a representing function u with $u(A)\geq u(B)\iff A\succeq B$ . There are several ways to cope with this issue.

One-directional representation

Peleg^[6] defined a utility function representation of a strict partial order $\succ$ as a function $u:X\to \mathbb {R}$ such that $A\succ B\implies u(A)>u(B)$ , that is, only one direction of implication should hold. Peleg proved the existence of a one-dimensional continuous utility representation of a strict preference relation $\succ$ satisfying the following conditions:

Irreflexive and transitive (which implies that it is asymmetric, that is, is a strict partial order);
Separable;
For all $A\in X$ , the lower strict contour set at A is topologically open;
Spacious: if $A\succ B$ $Utility representation theorem$ , then the lower strict contour set at A contains the closure of the lower strict contour set at B.
- This condition is required for incomplete preference relations. For complete preference relations, every relation in which all lower and upper strict contour sets are open, is also spacious.

If we are given a weak preference relation $\succeq$ , we can apply Peleg's theorem by defining a strict preference relation: $A\succ B$ if and only if $A\succeq B$ and not $B\succeq A$ .^[6]

The second condition ( $\succ$ is separable) is implied by the following three conditions:

The space X is separable;
For all $A\in X$ , both lower and upper strict contour sets at A are topologically open;
If the lower countour set of A is nonempty, then A is in its closure.

A similar approach was taken by Richter.^[7] Therefore, this one-directional representation is also called a Richter-Peleg utility representation.^[8]

Jaffray^[9] defines a utility function representation of a strict partial order $\succ$ as a function $u:X\to \mathbb {R}$ such that both $A\succ B\implies u(A)>u(B)$ , and $A\approx B\implies u(A)=u(B)$ , where the relation $A\approx B$ is defined by: for all C, $A\succ C\iff B\succ C$ and $C\succ A\iff C\succ B$ (that is: the lower and upper contour sets of A and B are identical). He proved that, for every partially-ordered space $(X,\succ )$ that is perfectly-separable, there exists a utility function that is upper-semicontinuous in any topology stronger than the upper order topology.^[9]^: Sec.4 An analogous statement states the existence of a utility function that is lower-semicontinuous in any topology stronger than the lower order topology.

Sondermann^[10] defines a utility function representation similarly to Jaffray. He gives conditions for existence of a utility function representation on a probability space, that is upper semicontinuous or lower semicontinuous in the order topology.

Herden^[11]^[12] defines a utility function representation of a weak preorder $\succeq$ as an isotone function ^{[ clarification needed ]} $u:(X,\succeq )\to (\mathbb {R} ,\geq )$ such that $A\succ B\implies u(A)>u(B)$ . Herden^[11]^: Thm.4.1 proved that a weak preorder $\succeq$ on X has a continuous utility function, if and only if there exists a countable family E of separable systems on X such that, for all pairs $A\succ B$ , there is a separable system F in E, such that B is contained in all sets in F, and A is not contained in any set in F. He shows that this theorem implies Peleg's representation theorem. In a follow-up paper^[12] he clarifies the relation between this theorem and classical utility representation theorems on complete orders.

Multi-utility representation

A multi-utility representation (MUR) of a relation $\succeq$ is a set U of utility functions, such that $A\succeq B\iff \forall u\in U:u(A)\geq u(B)$ . In other words, A is preferred to B if and only if all utility functions in the set U unanimously hold this preference. The concept was introduced by Efe Ok.^[13]

Every preorder (reflexive and transitive relation) has a trivial MUR.^[1]^: Prop.1 Moreover, every preorder with closed upper contour sets has an upper-semicontinuous MUR, and every preorder with closed lower contour sets has a lower-semicontinuous MUR.^[1]^: Prop.2 However, not every preorder with closed upper and lower contour sets has a continuous MUR.^[1]^: Exm.1 Ok and Evren present several conditions on the existence of a continuous MUR:

$\succeq$ has a continuous MUR if-and-only-if (X, $\succeq$ ) is a semi-normally-preordered topological space.^[1]^{: Thm 0}
If X is a locally compact and sigma-compact Hausdorff space, and $\succeq$ is a closed subset of $X\times X$ , then $\succeq$ has a continuous MUR.^{: Thm 1} This in particular holds if X is a nonempty closed subset of a Euclidean space.
If X is any topological space, and $\succeq$ is a preorder with closed upper and lower contour sets, that satisfies strong local non-satiation and an additional property called niceness, then $\succeq$ has a continuous MUR.^[1]^{: Thm 2}

All the representations guaranteed by the above theorems might contain infinitely many utilities, and even uncountably many utilities. In practice, it is often important to have a finite MUR - a MUR with finitely many utilities. Evren and Ok prove there exists a finite MUR where all utilities are upper[lower] semicontinuous for any weak preference relation $\succeq$ satisfying the following conditions:^[1]^{: Thm 3}

Reflexive and Transitive (that is, $\succeq$ is a weak preorder);
All upper[lower] contour sets are topologically closed;
The space X is second-countable, that is, it has a countable basis.
The width of $\succeq$ $Utility representation theorem$ (the largest size of a set in which all elements are incomparable) is finite.
- The number of utility functions in the representation is at most the width of $\succeq$ .

Note that the guaranteed functions are semicontinuous, but not necessarily continuous, even if all upper and lower contour sets are closed.^[13]^: Exm.2 Evren and Ok say that "there does not seem to be a natural way of deriving a continuous finite multi-utility representation theorem, at least, not by using the methods adopted in this paper".

Related Research Articles

In mathematics, a topological space is called separable if it contains a countable, dense subset; that is, there exists a sequence $of elements of the space such that every nonempty open subset of the space contains at least one element of the sequence.$

This is a glossary of some terms used in the branch of mathematics known as topology. Although there is no absolute distinction between different areas of topology, the focus here is on general topology. The following definitions are also fundamental to algebraic topology, differential topology and geometric topology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indifference curve</span> Concept in economics

In economics, an indifference curve connects points on a graph representing different quantities of two goods, points between which a consumer is indifferent. That is, any combinations of two products indicated by the curve will provide the consumer with equal levels of utility, and the consumer has no preference for one combination or bundle of goods over a different combination on the same curve. One can also refer to each point on the indifference curve as rendering the same level of utility (satisfaction) for the consumer. In other words, an indifference curve is the locus of various points showing different combinations of two goods providing equal utility to the consumer. Utility is then a device to represent preferences rather than something from which preferences come. The main use of indifference curves is in the representation of potentially observable demand patterns for individual consumers over commodity bundles.

In mathematical analysis, semicontinuity is a property of extended real-valued functions that is weaker than continuity. An extended real-valued function $is upper semicontinuous at a point if, roughly speaking, the function values for arguments near are not much higher than$

Arrow's impossibility theorem, the general possibility theorem or Arrow's paradox is an impossibility theorem in social choice theory that states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting the specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of voting theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem. The theorem is named after economist and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, who demonstrated the theorem in his doctoral thesis and popularized it in his 1951 book Social Choice and Individual Values. The original paper was titled "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare".

In mathematics, general topology is the branch of topology that deals with the basic set-theoretic definitions and constructions used in topology. It is the foundation of most other branches of topology, including differential topology, geometric topology, and algebraic topology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weak ordering</span> Mathematical ranking of a set

In mathematics, especially order theory, a weak ordering is a mathematical formalization of the intuitive notion of a ranking of a set, some of whose members may be tied with each other. Weak orders are a generalization of totally ordered sets and are in turn generalized by (strictly) partially ordered sets and preorders.

In topology, a second-countable space, also called a completely separable space, is a topological space whose topology has a countable base. More explicitly, a topological space $is second-countable if there exists some countable collection of open subsets of such that any open subset of can be written as a union of elements of some subfamily of . A second-countable space is said to satisfy the second axiom of countability . Like other countability axioms, the property of being second-countable restricts the number of open sets that a space can have.$

In mathematical economics, the Arrow–Debreu model is a theoretical general equilibrium model. It posits that under certain economic assumptions there must be a set of prices such that aggregate supplies will equal aggregate demands for every commodity in the economy.

In economics, an ordinal utility function is a function representing the preferences of an agent on an ordinal scale. Ordinal utility theory claims that it is only meaningful to ask which option is better than the other, but it is meaningless to ask how much better it is or how good it is. All of the theory of consumer decision-making under conditions of certainty can be, and typically is, expressed in terms of ordinal utility.

In economics, convex preferences are an individual's ordering of various outcomes, typically with regard to the amounts of various goods consumed, with the property that, roughly speaking, "averages are better than the extremes". The concept roughly corresponds to the concept of diminishing marginal utility without requiring utility functions.

In mathematics, a finite topological space is a topological space for which the underlying point set is finite. That is, it is a topological space which has only finitely many elements.

In mathematics, contour sets generalize and formalize the everyday notions of

The maximum theorem provides conditions for the continuity of an optimized function and the set of its maximizers with respect to its parameters. The statement was first proven by Claude Berge in 1959. The theorem is primarily used in mathematical economics and optimal control.

In economics, and in other social sciences, preference refers to an order by which an agent, while in search of an "optimal choice", ranks alternatives based on their respective utility. Preferences are evaluations that concern matters of value, in relation to practical reasoning. Individual preferences are determined by taste, need, ..., as opposed to price, availability or personal income. Classical economics assumes that people act in their best (rational) interest. In this context, rationality would dictate that, when given a choice, an individual will select an option that maximizes their self-interest. But preferences are not always transitive, both because real humans are far from always being rational and because in some situations preferences can form cycles, in which case there exists no well-defined optimal choice. An example of this is Efron dice.

In cooperative game theory and social choice theory, the Nakamura number measures the degree of rationality of preference aggregation rules, such as voting rules. It is an indicator of the extent to which an aggregation rule can yield well-defined choices.

In economics, the Debreu's theorems are preference representation theorems—statements about the representation of a preference ordering by a real-valued utility function. The theorems were proved by Gerard Debreu during the 1950s.

In economics, the overtaking criterion is used to compare infinite streams of outcomes. Mathematically, it is used to properly define a notion of optimality for a problem of optimal control on an unbounded time interval.

In theoretical economics, an abstract economy is a model that generalizes both the standard model of an exchange economy in microeconomics, and the standard model of a game in game theory. An equilibrium in an abstract economy generalizes both a Walrasian equilibrium in microeconomics, and a Nash equilibrium in game-theory.

In functional analysis, the Borel graph theorem is generalization of the closed graph theorem that was proven by L. Schwartz.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Evren, Özgür; Ok, Efe A. (2011-08-01). "On the multi-utility representation of preference relations". Journal of Mathematical Economics. 47 (4): 554–563. doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2011.07.003. ISSN 0304-4068.
↑ Debreu, Gerard (1954). Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function.
↑ Debreu, Gerard (1986). "6. Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function". Mathematical economics : twenty papers of Gerard Debreu; introduction by Werner Hildenbrand (1st pbk. ed.). Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23736-X. OCLC 25466669.
↑ Debreu, Gerard (1964). "Continuity properties of Paretian utility". International Economic Review. 5 (3): 285–293. doi:10.2307/2525513. JSTOR 2525513.
↑ Jaffray, Jean-Yves (1975). "Existence of a Continuous Utility Function: An Elementary Proof". Econometrica. 43 (5/6): 981–983. doi:10.2307/1911340. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1911340.
1 2 Peleg, Bezalel (1970). "Utility Functions for Partially Ordered Topological Spaces". Econometrica. 38 (1): 93–96. doi:10.2307/1909243. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1909243.
1 2 Richter, Marcel K. (1966). "Revealed Preference Theory". Econometrica. 34 (3): 635–645. doi:10.2307/1909773. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1909773.
↑ Alcantud, José Carlos R.; Bosi, Gianni; Zuanon, Magalì (2016-03-01). "Richter–Peleg multi-utility representations of preorders". Theory and Decision. 80 (3): 443–450. doi:10.1007/s11238-015-9506-z. hdl: 11368/2865746 . ISSN 1573-7187. S2CID 255110550.
1 2 Jaffray, Jean-Yves (1975-12-01). "Semicontinuous extension of a partial order". Journal of Mathematical Economics. 2 (3): 395–406. doi:10.1016/0304-4068(75)90005-1. ISSN 0304-4068.
↑ Sondermann, Dieter (1980-10-01). "Utility representations for partial orders". Journal of Economic Theory. 23 (2): 183–188. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(80)90004-6. ISSN 0022-0531.
1 2 Herden, G. (1989-06-01). "On the existence of utility functions". Mathematical Social Sciences. 17 (3): 297–313. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(89)90058-9. ISSN 0165-4896.
1 2 Herden, G. (1989-10-01). "On the existence of utility functions ii". Mathematical Social Sciences. 18 (2): 107–117. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(89)90041-3. ISSN 0165-4896.
1 2 Ok, Efe (2002). "Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation". Journal of Economic Theory. 104 (2): 429–449. doi:10.1006/jeth.2001.2814. ISSN 0022-0531.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:3-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Evren, Özgür; Ok, Efe A. (2011-08-01). "On the multi-utility representation of preference relations". Journal of Mathematical Economics. 47 (4): 554–563. doi:10.1016/j.jmateco.2011.07.003. ISSN 0304-4068.

[Debreu54-2] Debreu, Gerard (1954). Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function.

[:0-3] Debreu, Gerard (1986). "6. Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function". Mathematical economics : twenty papers of Gerard Debreu; introduction by Werner Hildenbrand (1st pbk. ed.). Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23736-X. OCLC 25466669.

[Debreu64-4] Debreu, Gerard (1964). "Continuity properties of Paretian utility". International Economic Review. 5 (3): 285–293. doi:10.2307/2525513. JSTOR 2525513.

[5] Jaffray, Jean-Yves (1975). "Existence of a Continuous Utility Function: An Elementary Proof". Econometrica. 43 (5/6): 981–983. doi:10.2307/1911340. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1911340.

[:1-6] 1 2 Peleg, Bezalel (1970). "Utility Functions for Partially Ordered Topological Spaces". Econometrica. 38 (1): 93–96. doi:10.2307/1909243. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1909243.

[Richter_1966_635–645-7] 1 2 Richter, Marcel K. (1966). "Revealed Preference Theory". Econometrica. 34 (3): 635–645. doi:10.2307/1909773. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1909773.

[8] Alcantud, José Carlos R.; Bosi, Gianni; Zuanon, Magalì (2016-03-01). "Richter–Peleg multi-utility representations of preorders". Theory and Decision. 80 (3): 443–450. doi:10.1007/s11238-015-9506-z. hdl: 11368/2865746 . ISSN 1573-7187. S2CID 255110550.

[:6-9] 1 2 Jaffray, Jean-Yves (1975-12-01). "Semicontinuous extension of a partial order". Journal of Mathematical Economics. 2 (3): 395–406. doi:10.1016/0304-4068(75)90005-1. ISSN 0304-4068.

[10] Sondermann, Dieter (1980-10-01). "Utility representations for partial orders". Journal of Economic Theory. 23 (2): 183–188. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(80)90004-6. ISSN 0022-0531.

[:4-11] 1 2 Herden, G. (1989-06-01). "On the existence of utility functions". Mathematical Social Sciences. 17 (3): 297–313. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(89)90058-9. ISSN 0165-4896.

[:5-12] 1 2 Herden, G. (1989-10-01). "On the existence of utility functions ii". Mathematical Social Sciences. 18 (2): 107–117. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(89)90041-3. ISSN 0165-4896.

[:2-13] 1 2 Ok, Efe (2002). "Utility Representation of an Incomplete Preference Relation". Journal of Economic Theory. 104 (2): 429–449. doi:10.1006/jeth.2001.2814. ISSN 0022-0531.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]