Exploration versus exploitation: A laboratory test of the single‐agent exponential bandit model.
This paper analyzes how individuals resolve an exploration versus exploitation trade‐off in a laboratory experiment. The experiment implements the single‐agent exponential bandit model. We analyze how subjects respond to changes in the prior belief, safe action, and discount factor. We find that sub...
| Publicado en: | Economic Inquiry Vol. 62; no. 1; pp. 267 - 287 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Jan2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=174271863&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 174271863 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00952583 EIQ jtl: Economic Inquiry issn: 00952583 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Jan2024 vid: 62 iid: 1 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 174271863 10.1111/ecin.13164 ppf: 267 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 1.1MB tig: atl: Exploration versus exploitation: A laboratory test of the single‐agent exponential bandit model. aug: au: Hudja, Stanton Woods, Daniel affil: Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Toronto Ontario,, Canada Department of Economics, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria su: Robbers Risk aversion Exploitation of humans sug: subj: Robbers Risk aversion Exploitation of humans keyword: bandits continuous time experimentation exponential bandit model bandits continuous time experimentation exponential bandit model ab: This paper analyzes how individuals resolve an exploration versus exploitation trade‐off in a laboratory experiment. The experiment implements the single‐agent exponential bandit model. We analyze how subjects respond to changes in the prior belief, safe action, and discount factor. We find that subjects respond in the predicted direction to these changes. However, we find that subjects under‐respond to the prior belief, under‐respond to the safe action, and typically explore less than predicted. Our results suggest that neither risk aversion nor the random termination probability are driving under‐experimentation. Our results are consistent with subjects having incorrect beliefs about exploration. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|