Robust inattentive discrete choice

L Lars Peter Hansen (Department of Economics and Booth School of Business) J Jianjun Miao (School of Economics) H Hao Xing (Department of Chemistry, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Engineering of Polymers, iChem (Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemistry for Energy Materials), Shanghai Key Laboratory of Molecular Catalysis and Innovative Materials)

Abstract

Rational inattention models characterize optimal decision-making in data-rich environments. In such environments, it can be costly to look carefully at all of the information. Some information is much more salient for the decision at hand and merits closer scrutiny. The inattention decision model formalizes this choice and deduces how best to navigate through the potentially vast array of data when making decisions. In the rational formulation, the decision-maker commits fully to a subjective prior distribution over the possible states of the world that could be realized. We relax this assumption and look for a robustly optimal solution to the inattention problem by allowing the decision-maker to be ambiguity averse with respect to this prior. We feature a setup that is deliberately simple by a) assuming a discrete set of choices, b) using Shannon’s mutual information to quantify attention costs, and c) imposing relative entropy with respect to a baseline probability distribution to quantify prior divergence. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the robust solution and develop numerical methods to solve it. In comparison to the rational solution with no prior uncertainty, our decision-maker slants priors in more cautious or pessimistic directions when deducing how to allocate attention over the range of available information. This approach implements a form of robustness to prior misspecification, or equivalently, a form of ambiguity aversion. We explore some examples that show how the robust solution differs from the rational solution with a commitment to a subjective prior distribution and how it differs from imposing risk aversion.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 122, Issue 6
Published February 11, 2025
ISSN 0027-8424
Publisher National Academy of Sciences

Authors (3)

L

Lars Peter Hansen

Department of Economics and Booth School of Business

J

Jianjun Miao

School of Economics

H

Hao Xing

Department of Chemistry, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Engineering of Polymers, iChem (Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemistry for Energy Materials), Shanghai Key Laboratory of Molecular Catalysis and Innovative Materials