BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Ole Peters

Ole Peters appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
q-fin.ECq-fin.GNq-fin.RMcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.softecon.GNecon.THmath-phmath.MPmath.PRnlin.AOphysics.ao-phPopulations and Evolutionq-fin.PM

Catalog footprint

What is connected

13works
14topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

13 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

The time interpretation of expected utility theory

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Leverage efficiency

Peters (2011a) defined an optimal leverage which maximizes the time-average growth rate of an investment held at constant leverage. It was hypothesized that this optimal leverage is attracted to 1, such that, e.g., leveraging an investment in the market portfolio cannot yield long-term outperformance. This places a strong constraint on the stochastic properties of prices of traded assets, which we call "leverage efficiency." Market conditions that deviate from leverage efficiency are unstable and may create leverage-driven bubbles. Here we expand on the hypothesis and its implications. These include a theory of noise that explains how systemic stability rules out smooth price changes at any pricing frequency; a resolution of the so-called equity premium puzzle; a protocol for central bank interest rate setting to avoid leverage-driven price instabilities; and a method for detecting fraudulent investment schemes by exploiting differences between the stochastic properties of their prices and those of legitimately-traded assets. To submit the hypothesis to a rigorous test we choose price data from different assets: the S&P500 index, Bitcoin, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Analysis of these data supports the hypothesis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Two Growth Rates of the Economy

Economic growth is measured as the rate of relative change in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Yet, when incomes follow random multiplicative growth, the ensemble-average (GDP per capita) growth rate is higher than the time-average growth rate achieved by each individual in the long run. This mathematical fact is the starting point of ergodicity economics. Using the atypically high ensemble-average growth rate as the principal growth measure creates an incomplete picture. Policymaking would be better informed by reporting both ensemble-average and time-average growth rates. We analyse rigorously these growth rates and describe their evolution in the United States and France over the last fifty years. The difference between the two growth rates gives rise to a natural measure of income inequality, equal to the mean logarithmic deviation. Despite being estimated as the average of individual income growth rates, the time-average growth rate is independent of income mobility.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

What are we weighting for? A mechanistic model for probability weighting

Behavioural economics provides labels for patterns in human economic behaviour. Probability weighting is one such label. It expresses a mismatch between probabilities used in a formal model of a decision (i.e. model parameters) and probabilities inferred from real people's decisions (the same parameters estimated empirically). The inferred probabilities are called "decision weights." It is considered a robust experimental finding that decision weights are higher than probabilities for rare events, and (necessarily, through normalisation) lower than probabilities for common events. Typically this is presented as a cognitive bias, i.e. an error of judgement by the person. Here we point out that the same observation can be described differently: broadly speaking, probability weighting means that a decision maker has greater uncertainty about the world than the observer. We offer a plausible mechanism whereby such differences in uncertainty arise naturally: when a decision maker must estimate probabilities as frequencies in a time series while the observer knows them a priori. This suggests an alternative presentation of probability weighting as a principled response by a decision maker to uncertainties unaccounted for in an observer's model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

An evolutionary advantage of cooperation

Cooperation is a persistent behavioral pattern of entities pooling and sharing resources. Its ubiquity in nature poses a conundrum. Whenever two entities cooperate, one must willingly relinquish something of value to the other. Why is this apparent altruism favored in evolution? Classical solutions assume a net fitness gain in a cooperative transaction which, through reciprocity or relatedness, finds its way back from recipient to donor. We seek the source of this fitness gain. Our analysis rests on the insight that evolutionary processes are typically multiplicative and noisy. Fluctuations have a net negative effect on the long-time growth rate of resources but no effect on the growth rate of their expectation value. This is an example of non-ergodicity. By reducing the amplitude of fluctuations, pooling and sharing increases the long-time growth rate for cooperating entities, meaning that cooperators outgrow similar non-cooperators. We identify this increase in growth rate as the net fitness gain, consistent with the concept of geometric mean fitness in the biological literature. This constitutes a fundamental mechanism for the evolution of cooperation. Its minimal assumptions make it a candidate explanation of cooperation in settings too simple for other fitness gains, such as emergent function and specialization, to be probable. One such example is the transition from single cells to early multicellular life.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Far from equilibrium: Wealth reallocation in the United States

Studies of wealth inequality often assume that an observed wealth distribution reflects a system in equilibrium. This constraint is rarely tested empirically. We introduce a simple model that allows equilibrium but does not assume it. To geometric Brownian motion (GBM) we add reallocation: all individuals contribute in proportion to their wealth and receive equal shares of the amount collected. We fit the reallocation rate parameter required for the model to reproduce observed wealth inequality in the United States from 1917 to 2012. We find that this rate was positive until the 1980s, after which it became negative and of increasing magnitude. With negative reallocation, the system cannot equilibrate. Even with the positive reallocation rates observed, equilibration is too slow to be practically relevant. Therefore, studies which assume equilibrium must be treated skeptically. By design they are unable to detect the dramatic conditions found here when data are analysed without this constraint.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Evaluating gambles using dynamics

Gambles are random variables that model possible changes in monetary wealth. Classic decision theory transforms money into utility through a utility function and defines the value of a gamble as the expectation value of utility changes. Utility functions aim to capture individual psychological characteristics, but their generality limits predictive power. Expectation value maximizers are defined as rational in economics, but expectation values are only meaningful in the presence of ensembles or in systems with ergodic properties, whereas decision-makers have no access to ensembles and the variables representing wealth in the usual growth models do not have the relevant ergodic properties. Simultaneously addressing the shortcomings of utility and those of expectations, we propose to evaluate gambles by averaging wealth growth over time. No utility function is needed, but a dynamic must be specified to compute time averages. Linear and logarithmic "utility functions" appear as transformations that generate ergodic observables for purely additive and purely multiplicative dynamics, respectively. We highlight inconsistencies throughout the development of decision theory, whose correction clarifies that our perspective is legitimate. These invalidate a commonly cited argument for bounded utility functions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Ergodicity breaking in geometric Brownian motion

Geometric Brownian motion (GBM) is a model for systems as varied as financial instruments and populations. The statistical properties of GBM are complicated by non-ergodicity, which can lead to ensemble averages exhibiting exponential growth while any individual trajectory collapses according to its time-average. A common tactic for bringing time averages closer to ensemble averages is diversification. In this letter we study the effects of diversification using the concept of ergodicity breaking.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

The time resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox

A resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox is presented. In contrast to the standard resolution, utility is not required. Instead, the time-average performance of the lottery is computed. The final result can be phrased mathematically identically to Daniel Bernoulli's resolution, which uses logarithmic utility, but is derived using a conceptually different argument. The advantage of the time resolution is the elimination of arbitrary utility functions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Optimal leverage from non-ergodicity

In modern portfolio theory, the balancing of expected returns on investments against uncertainties in those returns is aided by the use of utility functions. The Kelly criterion offers another approach, rooted in information theory, that always implies logarithmic utility. The two approaches seem incompatible, too loosely or too tightly constraining investors' risk preferences, from their respective perspectives. The conflict can be understood on the basis that the multiplicative models used in both approaches are non-ergodic which leads to ensemble-average returns differing from time-average returns in single realizations. The classic treatments, from the very beginning of probability theory, use ensemble-averages, whereas the Kelly-result is obtained by considering time-averages. Maximizing the time-average growth rates for an investment defines an optimal leverage, whereas growth rates derived from ensemble-average returns depend linearly on leverage. The latter measure can thus incentivize investors to maximize leverage, which is detrimental to time-average growth and overall market stability. The Sharpe ratio is insensitive to leverage. Its relation to optimal leverage is discussed. A better understanding of the significance of time-irreversibility and non-ergodicity and the resulting bounds on leverage may help policy makers in reshaping financial risk controls.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Universality under conditions of self-tuning

We study systems with a continuous phase transition that tune their parameters to maximize a quantity that diverges solely at a unique critical point. Varying the size of these systems with dynamically adjusting parameters, the same finite-size scaling is observed as in systems where all relevant parameters are fixed at their critical values. This scheme is studied using a self-tuning variant of the Ising model. It is contrasted with a scheme where systems approach criticality through a target value for the order parameter that vanishes with increasing system size. In the former scheme, the universal exponents are observed in naive finite-size scaling studies, whereas in the latter they are not.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2002arXiv

Rain: Relaxations in the sky

We demonstrate how, from the point of view of energy flow through an open system, rain is analogous to many other relaxational processes in Nature such as earthquakes. By identifying rain events as the basic entities of the phenomenon, we show that the number density of rain events per year is inversely proportional to the released water column raised to the power 1.4. This is the rain-equivalent of the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquakes. The event durations and the waiting times between events are also characterised by scaling regions, where no typical time scale exists. The Hurst exponent of the rain intensity signal $H = 0.76 > 0.5$. It is valid in the temporal range from minutes up to the full duration of the signal of half a year. All of our findings are consistent with the concept of self-organised criticality, which refers to the tendency of slowly driven non-equilibrium systems towards a state of scale free behaviour.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access