The time interpretation of expected utility theory O. Peters1;2, A. Adamou1∗ 1London Mathematical Laboratory, 8 Margravine Gardens, W6 8RH London, UK 2Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA (Dated: March 2, 2021) Ergodicity economics is a new branch of economic theory that notes the conceptual difference between time averages and expectation values, which coincide only for ergodic observables. It postulates that individual agents maximise the time average growth rate of wealth, known widely as growth optimality. This contrasts with the dominant behavioural model in economics, expected utility theory, in which agents maximise expectation values of changes in psychologically transformed wealth. Historically, growth optimality was explored for additive and multiplicative gambles. Here we apply it to a general class of wealth dynamics, extending the range of economic situations where it may be used. Moreover, we show a correspondence between growth optimality and expected utility theory, in which the ergodicity transformation in the former is identified as the utility function in the latter. This correspondence offers a theoretical basis for choosing utility functions and predicts that wealth dynamics are strong determinants of risk preferences. PACS numbers: 02.50.Ey,05.10.Gg,05.20.Gg,05.40.Jc I. INTRODUCTION pool and share their individual outcomes. The expecta- tion value has no mechanistic relevance to an individual Expected utility theory (EUT) is a foundational model agent, who is exposed to only one of the possible out- of decisions under uncertainty, originating in [1]. In it, comes. The effect of a sequence of random variables on an individual agent maximises the mathematical expec- the agent's wealth may be well characterised by a time tation of the random change in a nonlinear transforma- average. The ergodicity question asks whether time av- tion of wealth. This transformation is known as the util- erages are equivalent to expectation values. In general, ity function. It is viewed as encoding the agent's id- and in particular for the increments of growth processes iosyncratic aversion to risk which, under the standard encountered in economics, they are not. assumption of fixed preferences, is stable in time and The transformation of wealth to utility in EUT can be independent of exogenous factors. In short, agents in viewed as a way of restoring empirical relevance to the- EUT care about the average over all possible changes of oretically irrelevant expectation values, by introducing a transformation of wealth that reflects their hard-wired freedom to enable their fitting to behavioural data. EE psychology. develops decision theory in a conceptually different way: Since utility is a psychological construct, EUT offers no by modelling physical (i.e. untransformed) economic ob- way of reasoning deductively which utility function will servables, like wealth; and by specifying averages that best predict a real person's decisions. In the revealed are mechanistically relevant to individual agents (rather preferences framework, such decisions are observed first than to hypothetical collectives). and a utility function is fitted to the data. If the person's More specifically, and confining attention to wealth, preferences are stable and well characterised by the fitted EE seeks to build realistic models of its temporal evolu- utility function, then it is hoped their future decisions will tion. These models take the form of stochastic processes, be predictable using EUT. In practice, therefore, the the- whose generating equations are known as wealth dynam- ory is circular: it claims that agents maximise expected ics. The dynamics depend on the economic circumstances utility and defines this as the quantity agents are ob- of the agent and are defined exogenously to the agent's served to maximise. It can be used to represent observed preferences. For example, an agent with labour income and no savings would be well modelled as experiencing arXiv:1801.03680v2 [q-fin.EC] 28 Feb 2021 decisions but not to predict them a priori. Ergodicity economics (EE) is a recent branch of eco- additive changes in wealth, while for an agent with sig- nomics that examines the use of expectation values in nificant invested capital a multiplicative dynamic would economic models. See [13] and references therein. Expec- be more realistic. tation values are, by the law of large numbers, additive EE posits that an agent is concerned with the time av- averages over infinitely many realisations of a random erage growth rate of wealth, i.e. that achieved in a single variable. Where the random variable models a quantity trajectory of the stochastic process over long time. This of interest to an economic agent, like a change in wealth, is the mechanistically relevant maximand for an individ- its expectation value resembles the outcome achieved by ual exposed to a sequence of economic choices. In con- each member of a large collective of agents, who agree to trast, the growth rate of the expectation value of wealth, i.e. the average over all possible trajectories, would be relevant to a collective of agents. For general wealth dy- namics, these growth rates are different. ∗Electronic address: [email protected], [email protected] In EE all agents are assumed to have the same prefer- 2 ence: to maximise the time average growth rate of wealth. conducted to compare the predictions of EE against those This decision criterion is not new and is often referred to of EUT with fixed preferences [9]. They support the pre- as growth optimality. It has a long history in the setting diction of EE that dynamics are strong determinants of of multiplicative gambles, made famous as the \Kelly cri- preferences. terion" in the 1950s [6] and dating as far back as the 1870s [16]. The cases of additive and multiplicative wealth dy- namics were treated in the EE framework in [14]. II. EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY What is a growth rate? In simple terms, it is the co- efficient of time in a growth function. Different dynam- Here we provide a brief recap of EUT. To keep it rele- ics correspond to different growth functions and, there- vant and manageable, we restrict it to financial decisions. fore, to different growth rates. For example, wealth that We will not consider the utility of an apple or a poem, grows linearly in time, x = gt, has its growth rate ex- but only utility differences between different monetary tracted by the operation dx=dt = g; while for exponen- amounts. We restrict ourselves to situations where any tial growth, x = exp(gt), the growth rate is extracted non-financial attendant circumstances of the decision can by d ln x=dt = g. In both cases, a constant is obtained be disregarded. In other words, we work with a form of from a time-varying function as the rate of change of homo economicus. transformed wealth, linear and logarithmic in these sim- For an agent facing a choice between different courses ple examples. In stochastic growth models, it is no longer of action, the workflow of EUT is as follows. possible to find functions of wealth whose rates of change 1. Imagine everything that could happen under the are constant. Instead, the function, known in EE as the different actions: ergodicity transformation, is chosen to extract an ergodic Associate with any action A; B; C; : : : a set of pos- growth rate from the stochastic process. sible future events ΩA; ΩB; ΩC ;::: . We do two things in this paper. Firstly, we generalise growth optimality beyond the additive and multiplica- 2. Estimate how likely the consequences of each ac- tive wealth dynamics treated in the literature hitherto. tion are and how they affect your wealth: Economically speaking, we allow wealth to evolve in a For set ΩA, associate a probability p(!A) and a general manner, rather than through income and con- change in wealth ∆x!A with each elementary event sumption flows or the compounding of investments. This !A 2 ΩA, and similarly for all other sets. broadens the range of economic situations that can be 3. Specify how these outcomes affect your utility: modelled in EE. Define a utility function, u(x), that depends only on Secondly, we draw a correspondence between EE and wealth and describes the agent's risk preferences. EUT by noting that the time average of the ergodic growth rate for given wealth dynamics is, by virtue of 4. Aggregate the utility changes for each event: its ergodicity, equal to its expectation value. This allows Compute the expected changes in utility asso- growth optimal decisions to be formulated as maximis- ciated with each available action, h∆uAi = ing expected utility, by identifying the utility function in P p(! )u(x+∆x(! ))−u(x), and similarly for ΩA A A EUT as the ergodicity transformation for the wealth dy- actions B; C; : : : . namics in EE. We show that this correspondence exists 5. Pick the action that increases your utility most: for a class of wealth dynamics, specifically those that ad- The option with the highest expected utility change mit an ergodicity transformation, and we derive the con- is the agent's preferred choice. ditions for membership of this class. Going in the oppo- site direction, we show that all invertible utility functions We assume all steps in this workflow are possible. have corresponding wealth dynamics for which expected Thus we assume that all possible future events, asso- utility maximisation is growth optimal. ciated probabilities, and changes in wealth are known; This correspondence between two conceptually differ- that a suitable utility function is available; and that the ent but well established behavioural models opens tan- mathematical expectation of utility changes is the mathe- talising new avenues to researchers in both areas.