Expressive Rationality
|
|
- Nancy Potter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Expressive Rationality Larry Blume Cornell University & The Santa Fe Institute & IHS, Vienna
2 What Caused the Financial Crisis? Blume Expressive Rationality 1
3 What Caused the Financial Crisis? MATH! Blume Expressive Rationality 1
4 What Caused the Financial Crisis? When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. Paul Krugman, NYT Blume Expressive Rationality 1
5 What Caused the Financial Crisis? When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. Paul Krugman, NYT Copula image source: quant.
6 What is Probability? Coin Flip Blume Expressive Rationality 2
7 What is Probability? Horse Race Blume Expressive Rationality 2
8 What is Probability? Horse Race This is the Objective Subjective Distinction
9 What is Probability? Electron Cloud Blume Expressive Rationality 3
10 What is Probability? Galton Board Blume Expressive Rationality 3
11 What is Probability? f (x) = { µx if 0 x 1/2, µ(1 x) if 1/2 < x 1. Tent Map Blume Expressive Rationality 3
12 What is Probability? Financial Market Blume Expressive Rationality 3
13 What is Probability? Financial Market The ontic/aleatory epistemic distinction. Quantum mechanics gives a probalistic description of the location of an electron around the nucleus of an atom. It is inherently probalistic. The Dalton board would be deterministic if we knew the initial conditions, but we don t. Same with Coin flips. For 2 µ 2 the Tent map has a unique invariant measure ν µ which is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure, and that measure is ergodic. If you do not know the initial condition, and have any prior belief p 0 on x 0, then your prior belief about x 1000 should be p 1000 ν µ. So even though beliefs about one run of the tent map should be thought of as epistemic, the system forces your beliefs about x There are physical systems with this property the location of a gas molecule, solutions to the n-body problem, etc. Financial Markets?
14 Classification of Probability Types Ontic Epistemic Objective Electron Cloud Coin Flip Subjective Tent Map Horse Race Blume Expressive Rationality 4
15 Measurement and Meaning Definition: A measurement structure M =< S, R 1,..., R n > is a set of objects S together with n m i -ary relations R i on S. Definition: A real-valued representation of M is a set Σ of real numbers and n m i -ary relations R i on Σ, together with a function φ : S Σ such that (s 1,..., s mi ) R i iff ( φ(s 1 ),..., φ(s mi ) ) R i. The problem of measurement is to find a representation. The problem of meaning is to determine which properties of < Σ, R 1,..., R n > have meaning for M. Blume Expressive Rationality 5
16 Measurement and Meaning Definition: A measurement structure M =< S, R1,..., Rn > is a set of objects S together with n mi-ary relations Ri on S. Definition: A real-valued representation of M is a set Σ of real numbers and n mi-ary relations Ri on Σ, together with a function φ : S Σ such that (s1,..., smi ) Ri iff ( φ(s1),..., φ(smi )) Ri. The problem of measurement is to find a representation. The problem of meaning is to determine which properties of < Σ, R1,..., Rn > have meaning for M. What does it mean to measure something? What are the experiments. The relation being measured: warmer than, better than, more likely than; together with operations on objects, such as concatenation, piling up on one side of a balance beam,... These relations collectively define experiments. Frequentism 1. Probability is assigned only to collectives. These are repetitive events or mass phenomena. 2. Collectives are modeled as infinite sequences. 3. Relative frequencies converge not just for the infinite sequence, but for any infinite subsequence. So what is the experiment that we can perform on, say, financial markets?
17 Probability as a Theory of Measurement An algebra A of sets of elements of a ground set S (of states). A complete relation B on A: A B means A is at least as likely as B. S A for all A A, and S. A representation of is a function p : A [0, 1] such that A B iff p(a) p(b). Blume Expressive Rationality 6
18 Probability as a Theory of Measurement: Finite States When is a representation a probability? A C = p(a C) = p(a) + p(c). Disjoint Union Property: Suppose C is disjoint from A, B. A B iff A C B C. Blume Expressive Rationality 7
19 Probability as a Theory of Measurement: Finite States When is a representation a probability? A C = p(a C) = p(a) + p(c). Cancellation: If A 1,..., A N and B 1,..., B N are sets such that for all s, #{n : s A n } = #{n : s B n } and for all n N 1, A n B n, then B N A N. Blume Expressive Rationality 7
20 Probability as a Theory of Measurement: Many States When is a representation a probability? 1. is complete and transitive on the power set S of S. 2. For A, B disjoint from C, A B iff A C B C. 3. If A B, there is a finite partition {C 1,..., C M } of S such that for all m, A B C. Theorem (Savage): If so there is a unique probability measure p on S such that A B iff p(a) p(b). Furthermore, for all A and 0 ρ 1 there is a B A such that p(b) = ρp(a). Blume Expressive Rationality 8
21 Probability as a Theory of Measurement: Many States When is a representation a probability? 1. is complete and transitive on the power set S of S. 2. For A, B disjoint from C, A B iff A C B C. 3. If A B, there is a finite partition {C1,..., CM} of S such that for all m, A B C. Theorem (Savage): If so there is a unique probability measure p on S such that A B iff p(a) p(b). Furthermore, for all A and 0 ρ 1 there is a B A such that p(b) = ρp(a). If you accept the continuum hypothesis, then p must be only finitely additive. S can be a σ-algebra, but not just an algebra. Savage s axioms does not imply that the state space be uncountable.
22 Alternative Measures of Probability Sets of Probabilities Non-additive Probabilities Belief Functions Inner and Outer Measure Lexicographic Probabilities Possibility Measures Plausibility Measures Ranking Functions Blume Expressive Rationality 9
23 Why Axiomatic Decision Theory? Are representations compelling? Axioms characterize preferences in terms of choice behavior. Important Models SEU LSEU Probabilistic Sophistication Wald citerion Minimax regret CEU MMEU Prospect Theory Hurwicz α rule Blume Expressive Rationality 10
24 Why Axiomatic Decision Theory? Are representations compelling? Axioms characterize preferences in terms of choice behavior. Important Models SEU LSEU Probabilistic Sophistication Wald citerion Minimax regret CEU MMEU Prospect Theory Hurwicz α rule Representations per se are not compelling. Characterize representations in terms of choice behavior. A decision model is normatively appropriate iff its characterizing axioms have normative appeal A decision model is descriptively appropriate iff its characterizing axioms have descriptive appeal Axioms give us a handle on verifying or falsifying, justifying or criticizing given models. vn-m - preferences over probability distributions SEU
25 A Common Framework States: A finite state space S. Outcomes: A finite set O, with best and worst outcomes x and x. Roulette Wheels: The set R of probability distributions on O. Horse Lotteries: The set H of functions h : S O. Preferences: A preference relation on H. Anscombe and Aumann (1963). Blume Expressive Rationality 11
26 Subjective Expected Utility SEU 1. is complete and transitive. SEU 2. Independence: If h k then for all g and 0 α 1, αg + (1 α)h αg + (1 α)k. SEU 3. Archimedean axiom. SEU 4. State independence. There is a payoff function u : O R and a unique probability distribution p on S which define a functional V on H, V (h) = s p(s) o u(o)h(s)(o) such that h k iff V (h) V (k). Blume Expressive Rationality 12
27 Probabilistic Sophistication Savage framework: S, O, acts f : s o. P 0 set of finite-support probabilities on O Definition: An individuali s said to be probabilistically sophisticated if there exists a probability measure p on S and a preference functional V (x 1, p 1,..., x m, p m ) on P 0 satisfying mixture continuity and monotonicity with respect to stochastic dominance, such that preferences on acts are represented by the functional f V ( x 1, p(f 1 (x 1 )),..., x n, p(f 1 (x n ) ) where {x 1,..., x n } is the range of f. Blume Expressive Rationality 13
28 Probabilistic Sophistication Savage framework: S, O, acts f : s o. P0 set of finite-support probabilities on O Definition: An individuali s said to be probabilistically sophisticated if there exists a probability measure p on S and a preference functional V (x1, p1,..., xm, pm) on P0 satisfying mixture continuity and monotonicity with respect to stochastic dominance, such that preferences on acts are represented by the functional f V ( x1, p(f 1 (x1)),..., xn, p(f 1 (xn) ) where {x1,..., xn} is the range of f. The separation of tastes and beliefs. Mixture-closed, Stochastic dominance: p stochastically dominates q iff for every increasing function f, R f dp R f dq.
29 Why Non-Additive Probabilities? Ellsberg s Urns Schmeidler s Coins Blume Expressive Rationality 14
30 Why Non-Additive Probabilities? Ellsberg s Urns Schmeidler s Coins Image:
31 Choquet Expected Utility Definition: Acts f and g are comonotonic if f (s) f (t) implies g(s) g(t) for all s, t S. CEU 1. is complete and transitive. CEU 2. Comonotonic independence. CEU 3. Archimedean axiom. CEU 4. State independence. There is a payoff function u : O R and a unique capacity φ on S which define a functional V on H, V (h) = u(o)h(s)(o)dφ(s) such that h k iff V (h) V (k). S o Blume Expressive Rationality 15
32 MMEU MMEU 1. is complete and transitive. MMEU 2. Certainty independence. MMEU 3. Archimedean axiom. MMEU 4. State independence. MMEU 5. f g implies that for all 0 < α < 1, αf + (1 α)g f. There is a payoff function u : O R and a set P of probability distributions on S which define a functional V on H, V (h) = inf p(s) u(o)h(s)(o) p P o such that h k iff V (h) V (k). s Blume Expressive Rationality 16
33 MMEU MMEU 1. is complete and transitive. MMEU 2. Certainty independence. MMEU 3. Archimedean axiom. MMEU 4. State independence. MMEU 5. f g implies that for all 0 < α < 1, αf + (1 α)g f. There is a payoff function u : O R and a set P of probability distributions on S which define a functional V on H, V (h) = inf u(o)h(s)(o) p P s such that h k iff V (h) V (k). p(s) o Connection between MMEU, CEU. The core of a capacity is the set of all probability measures that dominate it. If φ is convex, φ(a B) + φ(a B) φ(a) + φ(b), then the Choquet integral of any real-valued function f with respect to φ is the minimum of the integrals with respect to probability distributions in the core. Notice that with equality, this is inclusion/exclusion, and is always satisfied by any probability measure.
34 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. In SEU, any h gives the same answer, and A is represented by u and p( A). Blume Expressive Rationality 17
35 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. S = {x, y, z}. φ(x) = 1/4, φ(y) = φ(z) = 1/8, φ(x, z) = 1/2, φ(y, z) = 3/4, φ(x, y) = 1/2. Let A = {x, y} f (x) = 1 on x, else 0, g(x) = 1 on y, else 0. Blume Expressive Rationality 17
36 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. S = {x, y, z}. φ(x) = 1/4, φ(y) = φ(z) = 1/8, φ(x, z) = 1/2, φ(y, z) = 3/4, φ(x, y) = 1/2. Let A = {x, y} f (x) = 1 on x, else 0, g(x) = 1 on y, else 0. f dφ = 0 + 1φ(x) = 1/4 g dφ = 0 + 1φ(y) = 1/8 Blume Expressive Rationality 17
37 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. S = {x, y, z}. φ(x) = 1/4, φ(y) = φ(z) = 1/8, φ(x, z) = 1/2, φ(y, z) = 3/4, φ(x, y) = 1/2. Let A = {x, y} f (x) = 1 on x, else 0, g(x) = 1 on y, else 0. f dφ = 0 + 1φ(x) = 1/4 g dφ = 0 + 1φ(y) = 1/8 h = 0 f A h dφ = 0 + 1φ(x) = 1/4 g A h dφ = 0 + 1φ(y) = 1/8 Blume Expressive Rationality 17
38 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. S = {x, y, z}. φ(x) = 1/4, φ(y) = φ(z) = 1/8, φ(x, z) = 1/2, φ(y, z) = 3/4, φ(x, y) = 1/2. Let A = {x, y} f (x) = 1 on x, else 0, g(x) = 1 on y, else 0. f dφ = 0 + 1φ(x) = 1/4 g dφ = 0 + 1φ(y) = 1/8 h = 0 f A h dφ = 0 + 1φ(x) = 1/4 h = 1 f A h dφ = 0+1φ(x, z) = 1/2 g A h dφ = 0 + 1φ(y) = 1/8 g A h dφ = 0+1φ(y, z) = 3/4 Blume Expressive Rationality 17
39 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f A h g A h. MMEU version µ 1 = (3/8, 1/8, 1/2) µ 2 = (1/4, 1/2, 1/4) µ 3 = (1/4, 5/8, 1/8) f A 0 1/4 g A 0 1/8 f A 1 3/8 g A 1 5/8 Blume Expressive Rationality 17
40 The Problem with Conditioning Savage Conditioning: f A g iff for some h, f Ah g Ah. MMEU version µ1 = (3/8, 1/8, 1/2) µ2 = (1/4, 1/2, 1/4) µ3 = (1/4, 5/8, 1/8) f A0 1/4 g A0 1/8 f A1 3/8 g A1 5/8 Updating is the problem of defining conditional preference. Define f A h. Same issue arises with MMEU. This is what I will talk about most.
41 The Conditioning Tradeoff Dynamic Consistency: If f A g in all ex post situations A, then f g. Consequentialism: Conditional preferences given A A only depend on what happens in A. Fact of Life: If the CEU updating rule satisfies dynamic consistency and conequentialism, then the capacity is a probability (and updating is Bayes). Blume Expressive Rationality 18
42 f -Bayesian Updating Definition: An updating rule is a map (, A) A that assigns to an unconditional preference relation and an event A the preference relation given A. Definition: For act f, the f -Bayesian updating rule is g f A h iff g A f h A f. Blume Expressive Rationality 19
43 f -Bayesian Updating Definition: An updating rule is a map (, A) A that assigns to an unconditional preference relation and an event A the preference relation given A. Definition: For act f, the f -Bayesian updating rule is g f A h iff g A f h A f. The optimistic rule: f o. A is good news. The Bayesian rule. φ A (B) = φ(b A)/φ(A). Select and update all priors assigning maximal probability to A. Blume Expressive Rationality 19
44 f -Bayesian Updating Definition: An updating rule is a map (, A) A that assigns to an unconditional preference relation and an event A the preference relation given A. Definition: For act f, the f -Bayesian updating rule is g f A h iff g A f h A f. The pessimistic rule: f o. A is bad news. φ A (B) = [ φ ( (B A) A c) φ(a c ) ] / ( 1 φ(a c ) ). The Dempster-Shafer rule for belief functions. Blume Expressive Rationality 19
45 f -Bayesian Updating Definition: An updating rule is a map (, A) A that assigns to an unconditional preference relation and an event A the preference relation given A. Definition: For act f, the f -Bayesian updating rule is g f A h iff g Af haf. The pessimistic rule: f o. A is bad news. φa(b) = [ φ ( (B A) A c) φ(a c ) ] / ( 1 φ(a c ) ). The Dempster-Shafer rule for belief functions. Affine u. S 4. Fagin-Halpern is full updating.
46 MMEU: Full Bayesian Updating F1. The updating rules (, A) A takes MMEU preferences ino MMEU preferences. F2. For all non-null events A and outcomes o, if f o then f A o o. Theorem: If u and P are an MMEU representation for and p(a) > 0 for all p P, then u and {q = p( A), p P} give an MMEU representation for A. Fagin and Halpern (1989), Pires (2002). Blume Expressive Rationality 20
47 MMEU: Full Bayesian Updating F1. The updating rules (, A) A takes MMEU preferences ino MMEU preferences. F2. For all non-null events A and outcomes o, if f o then f Ao o. Theorem: If u and P are an MMEU representation for and p(a) > 0 for all p P, then u and {q = p( A), p P} give an MMEU representation for A. Fagin and Halpern (1989), Pires (2002). MMEU is inherently pessimist, selecting priors which put the most weight on the worst outcomes. F2 guarantees that no matter the weights on E vs. E c, the relative weights on states within E have to cohere with the unconditional weights.
48 Easy Implications: Portfolios 0 net positions in portfolios over a range of prices. An asset pays off 1 in state H and 3 instate T. Trader beliefs are φ(h) = 0.3 and φ(t ) = 0.4. The expected payoff of a unit long position at price p is v b = (1 p) + 0.4(2) = 1.8 p. The value of a unit short position is v s = p (2) = p 2.4. For 1.8 < p < 2.4, the 0 position is better than both. Home Bias Paradox Equity Premium Puzzle Blume Expressive Rationality 21
49 Easy Implications: Portfolios 0 net positions in portfolios over a range of prices. An asset pays off 1 in state H and 3 instate T. Trader beliefs are φ(h) = 0.3 and φ(t ) = 0.4. The expected payoff of a unit long position at price p is vb = (1 p) + 0.4(2) = 1.8 p. The value of a unit short position is vs = p (2) = p 2.4. For 1.8 < p < 2.4, the 0 position is better than both. Home Bias Paradox Equity Premium Puzzle WIth SEU preferences, the 0 zone is a point, and there is indifference between buying and selling.
50 FINIS! Blume Expressive Rationality 22
51 Definition: Non-Additive Probability Definition: A non-additive probability ν on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that N.1. ν( ) = 0, N.2. ν(s) = 1, N.3. If A B, then ν(a) ν(b). For example, S = {s 1, s 2 }. ν α ( ) = 0 ν α (s 1 ) = ν α (s 2 ) = α ν α (S) = 1 Blume Expressive Rationality 23
52 Definition: Non-Additive Probability Definition: A non-additive probability ν on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that N.1. ν( ) = 0, N.2. ν(s) = 1, N.3. If A B, then ν(a) ν(b). Integration Suppose the values of f are x 1 < < x n. Then E ν f = x 1 + (x 2 x 1 )ν(f > x 1 ) + (x n x n 1 )ν(f > x n 1 ). Blume Expressive Rationality 23
53 Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions Definition: A belief function β on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that B.1. β( ) = 0, B.2. β(s) = 1, B.3. β( n i=1 A i) n i=1 I {1,...,n}: I =i ( 1)i+1 β( j I A j ). Blume Expressive Rationality 24
54 Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions Definition: A belief function β on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that B.1. β( ) = 0, B.2. β(s) = 1, B.3. β( n i=1 A i) n i=1 I {1,...,n}: I =i ( 1)i+1 β( j I A j ). B.3 is like inclusion-exclusion: Pr(A B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B) Pr(A B), Pr(A B C) = Pr(A) + Pr(B) + Pr(C) Pr(A B) Pr(A C) Pr(B C) + Pr(A B C). Blume Expressive Rationality 24
55 Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions Definition: A belief function β on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that B.1. β( ) = 0, B.2. β(s) = 1, B.3. β( n i=1 A i) n i=1 I {1,...,n}: I =i ( 1)i+1 β( j I A j ). β(a) = inf{p(a) : p β} Blume Expressive Rationality 24
56 Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions Definition: A belief function β on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that B.1. β( ) = 0, B.2. β(s) = 1, B.3. β( n i=1 Ai) n i=1 β(a) = inf{p(a) : p β} I {1,...,n}: I =i ( 1)i+1 β( j I Aj). Belief functions are tight capacities. m(a) is the weight of evidence for A not assigned to any of its subsets. Theorem due to Shafer.
57 Mass Functions & Belief Functions Definition: A mass function m on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that M.1. m( ) = 0, M.2. A S (A) = 1. Theorem: If S is finite and S = 2 S, then beta is a belief function if and only if there is a (unique) mass function m such that for all A, β(a) = B A m(b). Blume Expressive Rationality 25
58 Mass Functions & Belief Functions Definition: A mass function m on S is a function mapping subsets of S to [0, 1] such that M.1. m( ) = 0, M.2. A S (A) = 1. Theorem: If S is finite and S = 2 S, then beta is a belief function if and only if there is a (unique) mass function m such that for all A, β(a) = B A m(b). Belief functions are tight capacities. m(a) is the weight of evidence for A not assigned to any of its subsets. Theorem due to Shafer.
59 Definition: Lexicographic Probability Definition: A lexicographic probability on S is a vector of probabilities µ = (µ 1,..., µ n ) on S such that A B iff the vector µ(a) lexicographically dominates µ(b). LSEU ( { } ) n U(f ) = E µi u(o)f (s)(o). i=1 f g if and only if U(f ) U(g). o Blume Brandenburger and Dekel (1993a,b) Blume Expressive Rationality 26
60 References Blume, L., A. Brandenburger and E. Dekel (1993). Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty. Econometrica. Cerreia-Vioglio,S., et. al., (2008). Uncertainty averse preferences. Unpublished. Fagin, R. and Halpern, J. (1991). A new approach to updating belief, in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 6. Gelman, A. (2006). The boxer, the wrestler, and the coin flip: A paradox of robust Bayesian inference and belief functions. The American Statistician. Gilboa, I. and D. Schmeidler (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics. Gilboa, I. and D. Schmeidler (1993). Updating ambiguous beliefs. Journal of Economic Theory 59. Kast, R., A. Lapied and P. Toquebeuf (2008). Updating Choquet integrals, consequentialism and dynamic consistency. Unpublished. Machina, M. and D. Schmeidler (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability Econometrica. Marinacci, M. and L. Montrucchio (2004). Introduction to the mathematics of ambiguity. In Uncertainty in Economic Theory: A collection of essays in honor of David Schmeidlers 65th birthday. Pires, C (2002). A rule for updating ambiguous beliefs. Theory and Decision Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity, Econometrica. Blume Expressive Rationality 27
Are Probabilities Used in Markets? 1
Journal of Economic Theory 91, 8690 (2000) doi:10.1006jeth.1999.2590, available online at http:www.idealibrary.com on NOTES, COMMENTS, AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Are Probabilities Used in Markets? 1 Larry
More informationRationality and Uncertainty
Rationality and Uncertainty Based on papers by Itzhak Gilboa, Massimo Marinacci, Andy Postlewaite, and David Schmeidler Warwick Aug 23, 2013 Risk and Uncertainty Dual use of probability: empirical frequencies
More informationSeptember 2007, France
LIKELIHOOD CONSISTENCY M h dabd ll i (& P t P W kk ) Mohammed Abdellaoui (& Peter P. Wakker) September 2007, France A new method is presented for measuring beliefs/likelihoods under uncertainty. It will
More informationRecursive Ambiguity and Machina s Examples
Recursive Ambiguity and Machina s Examples David Dillenberger Uzi Segal May 0, 0 Abstract Machina (009, 0) lists a number of situations where standard models of ambiguity aversion are unable to capture
More informationGREQAM. Document de Travail n Attitude toward information and learning under multiple priors. Robert Kast André Lapied Pascal Toquebeuf
GREQAM Groupement de Recherche en Economie Quantitative d'aix-marseille - UMR-CNR 6579 Ecole des Hautes Etudes en ciences ociales Universités d'aix-marseille II et III Document de Travail n 29-8 Attitude
More informationComparing Three Ways to Update Choquet Beliefs
26 February 2009 Comparing Three Ways to Update Choquet Beliefs Abstract We analyze three rules that have been proposed for updating capacities. First we consider their implications for updating the Choquet
More informationRecursive Ambiguity and Machina s Examples
Recursive Ambiguity and Machina s Examples David Dillenberger Uzi Segal January 9, 204 Abstract Machina (2009, 202) lists a number of situations where Choquet expected utility, as well as other known models
More informationMeasurable Ambiguity. with Wolfgang Pesendorfer. August 2009
Measurable Ambiguity with Wolfgang Pesendorfer August 2009 A Few Definitions A Lottery is a (cumulative) probability distribution over monetary prizes. It is a probabilistic description of the DMs uncertain
More informationSecond-Order Expected Utility
Second-Order Expected Utility Simon Grant Ben Polak Tomasz Strzalecki Preliminary version: November 2009 Abstract We present two axiomatizations of the Second-Order Expected Utility model in the context
More informationAnscombe & Aumann Expected Utility Betting and Insurance
Anscombe & Aumann Expected Utility Betting and Insurance Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 11, October 3 Outline 1 Subjective Expected Utility 2 Qualitative Probabilities 3 Allais and Ellsebrg Paradoxes 4 Utility
More informationRECURSIVE AMBIGUITY AND MACHINA S EXAMPLES 1. INTRODUCTION
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REVIEW Vol. 56, No., February 05 RECURSIVE AMBIGUITY AND MACHINA S EXAMPLES BY DAVID DILLENBERGER AND UZI SEGAL University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; Boston College, U.S.A., and Warwick
More informationAn Axiomatic Model of Reference Dependence under Uncertainty. Yosuke Hashidate
An Axiomatic Model of Reference Dependence under Uncertainty Yosuke Hashidate Abstract This paper presents a behavioral characteization of a reference-dependent choice under uncertainty in the Anscombe-Aumann
More informationSubjective multi-prior probability: a representation of a partial l
Subjective multi-prior probability: a representation of a partial likelihood relation TAU, 22-11-2011 Outline of the talk: Motivation Background Examples Axioms Result Related literature Outline of the
More informationA Behavioral Characterization of Plausible Priors
A Behavioral Characterization of Plausible Priors Marciano Siniscalchi Economics Department, Northwestern University, 302 Arthur Andersen Hall, 2001 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208. marciano@northwestern.edu
More informationWorst-Case Expected Utility
Worst-Case Expected Utility Shiri Alon Abstract The paper presents a model in which a decision maker, having a preference relation over purely subjective acts, deviates minimally from the Subjective Expected
More informationWORKING PAPER SERIES
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES Paolo Ghirardato and Massimo Marinacci RISK, AMBIGUITY, AND THE SEPARATION OF UTILITY AND BELIEFS Working Paper no. 21/2001 September 2001
More informationEvaluating Ambiguous Random Variables and Updating by Proxy
Evaluating Ambiguous Random Variables and Updating by Proxy Faruk Gul and Wolfgang Pesendorfer Princeton University June 2018 Abstract We introduce a new theory of belief revision under ambiguity. It is
More informationUniform Sources of Uncertainty for Subjective Probabilities and
Uniform Sources of Uncertainty for Subjective Probabilities and Ambiguity Mohammed Abdellaoui (joint with Aurélien Baillon and Peter Wakker) 1 Informal Central in this work will be the recent finding of
More informationDecision Making under Uncertainty and Subjective. Probabilities
Decision Making under Uncertainty and Subjective Probabilities Edi Karni Johns Hopkins University September 7, 2005 Abstract This paper presents two axiomatic models of decision making under uncertainty
More informationGreat Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility*
Great Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility* Francis C. Chu and Joseph Y. Halpern Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. Email:
More informationDecision Theory Without Acts
Decision Theory Without Acts Larry Blume Joint work with David Easley & Joe Halpern Decision Theory Without Acts p.1/26 ambiguity / Ambiguity ambiguity: 1. Subjectively: Wavering of opinion; hesitation,
More informationAction-Independent Subjective Expected Utility without States of the World
heoretical Economics Letters, 013, 3, 17-1 http://dxdoiorg/10436/tel01335a004 Published Online September 013 (http://wwwscirporg/journal/tel) Action-Independent Subjective Expected Utility without States
More informationQuestions in Decision Theory
Questions in Decision Theory Itzhak Gilboa June 15, 2011 Gilboa () Questions in Decision Theory June 15, 2011 1 / 18 History Pascal and Bernoulli Gilboa () Questions in Decision Theory June 15, 2011 2
More informationLecture Notes 1: Decisions and Data. In these notes, I describe some basic ideas in decision theory. theory is constructed from
Topics in Data Analysis Steven N. Durlauf University of Wisconsin Lecture Notes : Decisions and Data In these notes, I describe some basic ideas in decision theory. theory is constructed from The Data:
More informationPre-probabilistic sophistication. Osamu Kada. July, 2009
Pre-probabilistic sophistication Osamu Kada Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-850, Japan (E-mail: smkada@ynu.ac.jp) July, 2009 We consider pre-probabilistic
More informationAmbiguity under Growing Awareness
Ambiguity under Growing Awareness Adam Dominiak 1 and Gerelt Tserenjigmid 2 1,2 Department of Economics, Virginia Tech September 10, 2018 Abstract In this paper, we study choice under growing awareness
More informationBayesian Updating for General Maxmin Expected Utility Preferences
Bayesian Updating for General Maxmin xpected Utility Preferences Marciano Siniscalchi September 14, 2001 First draft Comments welcome! Abstract A characterization of generalized Bayesian updating in a
More informationConditional Preferences and Updating
Conditional Preferences and Updating Tan Wang March, 2002 Abstract This paper axiomatizes updating rules for preferences that are not necessarily in the expected utility class. Two sets of results are
More informationA DE FINETTI THEOREM FOR CAPACITIES: AMBIGUITY ABOUT CORRELATION
A DE FINETTI THEOREM FOR CAPACITIES: AMBIGUITY ABOUT CORRELATION Larry G. Epstein Kyoungwon Seo January 16, 2010 Abstract The de Finetti Theorem on exchangeability is generalized to a framework where beliefs
More informationAllais, Ellsberg, and Preferences for Hedging
Allais, Ellsberg, and Preferences for Hedging Mark Dean and Pietro Ortoleva Abstract Two of the most well-known regularities observed in preferences under risk and uncertainty are ambiguity aversion and
More informationRiskiness for sets of gambles
Riskiness for sets of gambles Moti Michaeli Abstract Aumann Serrano (2008) and Foster Hart (2009) suggest two new riskiness measures, each of which enables one to elicit a complete and objective ranking
More informationA theory of robust experiments for choice under uncertainty
A theory of robust experiments for choice under uncertainty S. Grant a,, J. Kline b, I. Meneghel a, J. Quiggin b, R. Tourky a a Australian National University b The University of Queensland Abstract Thought
More informationConditional and Dynamic Preferences
Conditional and Dynamic Preferences How can we Understand Risk in a Dynamic Setting? Samuel Drapeau Joint work with Hans Föllmer Humboldt University Berlin Jena - March 17th 2009 Samuel Drapeau Joint work
More informationDominance and Admissibility without Priors
Dominance and Admissibility without Priors Jörg Stoye Cornell University September 14, 2011 Abstract This note axiomatizes the incomplete preference ordering that reflects statewise dominance with respect
More informationReverse Bayesianism: A Generalization
Reverse Bayesianism: A Generalization Edi Karni Johns Hopkins University and Warwick Business School Quitzé Valenzuela-Stookey Northwestern University Marie-Louise Vierø Queen s University December 10,
More informationChoice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities
Journal of Economic Theory 37 (2007) 538 567 www.elsevier.com/locate/jet Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities Alain Chateauneuf a, Jürgen Eichberger b,, Simon
More informationWe consider choice over uncertain, monetary payoffs and study a general class of preferences. These preferences
Published online ahead of print June 15, 212 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Articles in Advance, pp. 1 19 ISSN 25-199 (print) ISSN 1526-551 (online) http://dx.doi.org/1.1287/mnsc.112.1537 212 INFORMS Aspirational
More informationIs it Possible to Define Subjective Probabilities in Purely Behavioral Terms? A Comment on Epstein-Zhang (2001)
Is it Possible to Define Subjective Probabilities in Purely Behavioral Terms? A Comment on Epstein-Zhang (2001) Klaus Nehring University of California, Davis April 2006 Abstract It is shown that well-behaved
More informationPartial Ambiguity. CHEW Soo Hong, MIAO Bin, and ZHONG Songfa. November 2016
Partial Ambiguity CHEW Soo Hong, MIAO Bin, and ZHONG Songfa November 2016 Abstract We extend Ellsberg s two-urn paradox and propose three symmetric forms of partial ambiguity by limiting the possible compositions
More informationSUBJECTIVE INDEPENDENCE AND CONCAVE EXPECTED UTILITY. February 12, 2014
SUBJECTIVE INDEPENDENCE AND CONCAVE EXPECTED UTILITY EHUD LEHRER AND ROEE TEPER February 12, 2014 Abstract. When a potential hedge between alternatives does not reduce the exposure to uncertainty, we say
More informationChoice under uncertainty
Choice under uncertainty Expected utility theory The agent chooses among a set of risky alternatives (lotteries) Description of risky alternatives (lotteries) a lottery L = a random variable on a set of
More informationA Theory of Subjective Compound Lotteries
A Theory of Subjective Compound Lotteries Haluk Ergin Washington University in St Louis and Faruk Gul Princeton University September 2008 Abstract We develop a Savage-type model of choice under uncertainty
More informationDecision-making with belief functions
Decision-making with belief functions Thierry Denœux Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France HEUDIASYC (UMR CNRS 7253) https://www.hds.utc.fr/ tdenoeux Fourth School on Belief Functions and their
More informationCompleting the State Space with Subjective States 1
Journal of Economic Theory 105, 531539 (2002) doi:10.1006jeth.2001.2824 Completing the State Space with Subjective States 1 Emre Ozdenoren Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
More informationMaxmin expected utility as resulting from information on others preferences
Maxmin expected utility as resulting from information on others preferences Shiri Alon and Gabi Gayer Extremely Preliminary Draft Abstract This paper extends the Maxmin Expected Utility model of Gilboa
More informationObjective Imprecise Probabilistic Information, Second Order Beliefs and Ambiguity Aversion: an Axiomatization. Raphaël Giraud
Objective Imprecise robabilistic Information, Second Order Beliefs and Ambiguity Aversion: an Axiomatization Raphaël Giraud CRESE - University of Franche-Comté raphael.giraud@univ-fcomte.fr First version:
More informationRational Expectations and Ambiguity: A Comment on Abel (2002)
Rational Expectations and Ambiguity: A Comment on Abel (2002) Alexander Ludwig and Alexander Zimper 66-20 mea Mannheimer Forschungsinstitut Ökonomie und Demographischer Wandel Gebäude L 13, 17_D-68131
More informationExtendibility of Choquet rational preferences on generalized lotteries
Extendibility of Choquet rational preferences on generalized lotteries Giulianella Coletti, Davide Petturiti, and Barbara Vantaggi Dip. Matematica e Informatica, Università di Perugia, Italy coletti@dmi.unipg.it
More informationChoquet Integral and Its Applications: A Survey
Choquet Integral and Its Applications: A Survey Zengwu Wang and Jia-an Yan Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS, China August 2006 Introduction Capacity and Choquet integral, introduced by Choquet
More informationThis corresponds to a within-subject experiment: see same subject make choices from different menus.
Testing Revealed Preference Theory, I: Methodology The revealed preference theory developed last time applied to a single agent. This corresponds to a within-subject experiment: see same subject make choices
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.ai] 16 Aug 2018
Decision-Making with Belief Functions: a Review Thierry Denœux arxiv:1808.05322v1 [cs.ai] 16 Aug 2018 Université de Technologie de Compiègne, CNRS UMR 7253 Heudiasyc, Compiègne, France email: thierry.denoeux@utc.fr
More informationBayesian consistent prior selection
Bayesian consistent prior selection Christopher P. Chambers and Takashi Hayashi August 2005 Abstract A subjective expected utility agent is given information about the state of the world in the form of
More informationAmbiguity Models and the Machina Paradoxes
Ambiguity Models and the Machina Paradoxes Aurélien Baillon, Olivier L Haridon, and Laetitia Placido forthcoming, American Economic Review Abstract Machina (2009) introduced two examples that falsify Choquet
More informationCautious and Globally Ambiguity Averse
Ozgur Evren New Economic School August, 2016 Introduction Subject: Segal s (1987) theory of recursive preferences. Ambiguity aversion: Tendency to prefer risk to ambiguity. (Ellsberg paradox) risk objective,
More informationDynamic Consistency and Subjective Beliefs
Dynamic Consistency and Subjective Beliefs Spyros Galanis June 19, 2014 Abstract Using the notion of subjective beliefs from Rigotti et al. (2008), we provide, for a wide variety of dynamic models with
More informationModeling the Change of Paradigm: Non-Bayesian Reactions to Unexpected News
USC FBE APPLIED ECONOMICS WORKSHOP presented by Pietro Ortoleva FRIDAY, April 9, 2010 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm, Room: HOH-506 Modeling the Change of Paradigm: Non-Bayesian Reactions to Unexpected News Pietro
More informationOn the Measurement of Inequality under Uncertainty*
journal of economic theory 75, 194204 (1997) article no. ET962280 On the Measurement of Inequality under Uncertainty* Elchanan Ben-Porath Tel-Aviv University, Ramit-Aviv, 69 978 Tel-Aviv, Israel; and Northwestern
More informationA Behavioral Characterization of Plausible Priors
A Behavioral Characterization of Plausible Priors Marciano Siniscalchi Economics Department, Northwestern University, and Economics Department, Princeton University. May 2003 Abstract Recent theories of
More informationNash Equilibrium without. Mutual Knowledge of Rationality 1. Kin Chung Lo. Department of Economics, University oftoronto, July, 1995.
Nash Equilibrium without Mutual Knowledge of Rationality 1 Kin Chung Lo Department of Economics, University oftoronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 July, 1995 Abstract This paper denes an equilibrium
More informationEcon 2148, spring 2019 Statistical decision theory
Econ 2148, spring 2019 Statistical decision theory Maximilian Kasy Department of Economics, Harvard University 1 / 53 Takeaways for this part of class 1. A general framework to think about what makes a
More informationDifferentiating Ambiguity and Ambiguity Attitude
Differentiating Ambiguity and Ambiguity Attitude Paolo Ghirardato a,c Fabio Maccheroni b,c Massimo Marinacci a,c a Dipartimento di Statistica e Matematica Applicata - Università di Torino b Istituto di
More informationAmbiguity Aversion: An Axiomatic Approach Using Second Order Probabilities
Ambiguity Aversion: An Axiomatic Approach Using Second Order Probabilities William S. Neilson Department of Economics University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-0550 wneilson@utk.edu April 1993 Abstract
More informationAnalogy in Decision-Making
Analogy in Decision-Making Massimiliano Amarante Université de Montréal et IREQ Abstract. In the context of decision making under uncertainty, we formalize the concept of analogy: an analogy between two
More informationColumbia University. Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series. The Knob of the Discord. Massimiliano Amarante Fabio Maccheroni
Columbia University Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series The Knob of the Discord Massimiliano Amarante Fabio Maccheroni Discussion Paper No.: 0405-14 Department of Economics Columbia University
More informationCER-ETH Center of Economic Research at ETH Zurich
CER-ETH Center of Economic Research at ETH Zurich A Dual Approach to Ambiguity Aversion A. Bommier Working Paper 14/207 December 2014 Economics Working Paper Series A Dual Approach to Ambiguity Aversion
More informationConditional Expected Utility
Conditional Expected Utility Massimiliano Amarante Université de Montréal et CIREQ Abstract. Let E be a class of event. Conditionally Expected Utility decision makers are decision makers whose conditional
More informationA Subjective Foundation of Objective Probability
A Subjective Foundation of Objective Probability Luciano De Castro and Nabil I. Al-Najjar First draft: December 2008; This version: July 2009 Abstract De Finetti s concept of exchangeability provides a
More informationA dual theory for decision under risk and ambiguity
A dual theory for decision under risk and ambiguity Laeven, R.J.A.; Stadje, M.A. Published: 16/12/215 Document Version Publisher s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume
More informationCoherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty* OUTLINE
Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty* Teddy Seidenfeld joint work with Jay Kadane and Mark Schervish Carnegie Mellon University OUTLINE 1. Preliminaries a. Coherent choice functions b. The framework
More informationOn maxitive integration
On maxitive integration Marco E. G. V. Cattaneo Department of Mathematics, University of Hull m.cattaneo@hull.ac.uk Abstract A functional is said to be maxitive if it commutes with the (pointwise supremum
More informationLecture notes on statistical decision theory Econ 2110, fall 2013
Lecture notes on statistical decision theory Econ 2110, fall 2013 Maximilian Kasy March 10, 2014 These lecture notes are roughly based on Robert, C. (2007). The Bayesian choice: from decision-theoretic
More informationDecision making with imprecise probabilistic information
Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 647 681 Decision making with imprecise probabilistic information Thibault Gajdos a, Jean-Marc Tallon b,, Jean-Christophe Vergnaud b a CNS-CEST and ICE, France
More informationAbsolute and relative ambiguity aversion
Absolute and relative ambiguity aversion A preferential approach Simone Cerreia-Vioglio, Fabio Maccheroni, Massimo Marinacci Università Bocconi Oxford September 2018 CMM (Università Bocconi) Absolute and
More informationA survey of the theory of coherent lower previsions
A survey of the theory of coherent lower previsions Enrique Miranda Abstract This paper presents a summary of Peter Walley s theory of coherent lower previsions. We introduce three representations of coherent
More informationDynamic Consistency and Subjective Beliefs
Dynamic Consistency and Subjective Beliefs Spyros Galanis August 24, 2017 Abstract Ambiguity sensitive preferences must either fail Consequentialism or Dynamic Consistency (DC), two properties that are
More informationStatus Quo Bias, Multiple Priors and Uncertainty Aversion
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Status Quo Bias, Multiple Priors and Uncertainty Aversion Pietro Ortoleva New York University September 2008 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12243/ MPRA Paper
More informationIndifference Pricing with. Uncertainty Averse Preferences
Indifference Pricing with Uncertainty Averse Preferences Flavia Giammarino A thesis submitted to the Department of Statistics of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor
More informationNumerical representation of convex preferences over Anscombe Aumann acts
Numerical representation of convex preferences over Anscombe Aumann acts Patrick Cheridito, Freddy Delbaen, Samuel Drapeau, Michael Kupper January 2015 Abstract In this paper we derive a numerical representation
More informationA SMOOTH MODEL OF DECISION MAKING UNDER AMBIGUITY
A SMOOTH MODEL OF DECISION MAKING UNDER AMBIGUITY By Peter Klibanoff, Massimo Marinacci, and Sujoy Mukerji 1 forthcoming, Econometrica (This version: May 2005) 1 We thank N. Al-Najjar, E. Dekel, D. Fudenberg,
More informationRange-Dependent Utility
Range-Dependent Utility Micha l Lewandowski joint work with Krzysztof Kontek March 23, 207 Outline. Inspired by Parducci (964) we propose range-dependent utility (RDU) as a general framework for decisions
More informationAxiomatic Foundations of Multiplier Preferences
Axiomatic Foundations of Multiplier Preferences Tomasz trzalecki Northwestern University Abstract This paper axiomatizes the robust control criterion of multiplier preferences introduced by Hansen and
More informationQED. Queen s Economics Department Working Paper No Marie-Louise Vierø Department of Economics, Queen
QED Queen s Economics Department Working Paper No. 1094 Exactly What Happens After the Anscombe-Aumann Race? Representing Preferences in Vague Environments Marie-Louise Vierø Department of Economics, Queen
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 21 Feb 2013
arxiv:1302.5681v1 [cs.gt] 21 Feb 2013 Weighted Sets of Probabilities and Minimax Weighted Expected Regret: New Approaches for Representing Uncertainty and Making Decisions Joseph Y. Halpern Cornell University
More informationChoice under Uncertainty
In the Name of God Sharif University of Technology Graduate School of Management and Economics Microeconomics 2 44706 (1394-95 2 nd term) Group 2 Dr. S. Farshad Fatemi Chapter 6: Choice under Uncertainty
More informationFoundations for Structural Preferences
Foundations for Structural Preferences Marciano Siniscalchi April 28, 2016 Abstract The analysis of key game-theoretic concepts such as sequential rationality or backwardand forward-induction hinges on
More informationTemporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Recursive Models of Ambiguity Aversion. Tomasz Strzalecki Harvard University
Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Recursive Models of Ambiguity Aversion Tomasz Strzalecki Harvard University Preference for Earlier Resolution of Uncertainty instrumental value of information Spence
More informationProfessors Blume, Halpern and Easley Econ 476/ December 2004 CIS 576. Final Exam
Professors Blume, Halpern and Easley Econ 476/676 10 December 2004 CIS 576 Final Exam INSTRUCTIONS, SCORING: The points for each question are specified at the beginning of the question. There are 160 points
More informationTHE VON NEUMANN/MORGENSTERN APPROACH TO AMBIGUITY
THE VON NEUMANN/MORGENSTERN APPROACH TO AMBIGUITY MARTIN DUMAV, MAXWELL B. STINCHCOMBE Abstract. A choice problem is risky (respectively ambiguous) if the decision maker is choosing between probability
More informationA Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion
Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 449 466 0034-6527/05/00190449$02.00 c 2005 The Review of Economic Studies Limited A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion YORAM HALEVY University of British Columbia
More informationImprecise Probability
Imprecise Probability Alexander Karlsson University of Skövde School of Humanities and Informatics alexander.karlsson@his.se 6th October 2006 0 D W 0 L 0 Introduction The term imprecise probability refers
More informationConsistent Preferences with Reversals
Consistent Preferences with Reversals Berend Roorda Reinoud Joosten This version: March 15 2017 Abstract We propose an axiomatic framework for updating complete preference orderings without the monotonicity
More informationDecision Making Under Uncertainty. First Masterclass
Decision Making Under Uncertainty First Masterclass 1 Outline A short history Decision problems Uncertainty The Ellsberg paradox Probability as a measure of uncertainty Ignorance 2 Probability Blaise Pascal
More informationBernoulli Without Bayes: A Theory of Utility-Sophisticated Preferences under Ambiguity
Bernoulli Without Bayes: A Theory of Utility-Sophisticated Preferences under Ambiguity Klaus Nehring 1 University of California, Davis May 30, 2006 2 1 e-mail: kdnehring@ucdavis.edu 2 Some of the material
More informationCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91125 RANGE CONVEXITY AND AMBIGUITY AVERSE PREFERENCES. Paolo Ghirardato California Institute of Technology
More informationAxiomatic Foundations of Expected Utility. and Subjective Probability
Axiomatic Foundations of Expected Utility and Subjective Probability Edi Karni Johns Hopkins University April 29, 2013 This is a chapter commissioned for the Handbook of Risk and Uncertainty (Machina and
More informationRecursive Smooth Ambiguity Preferences 1
Recursive Smooth Ambiguity Preferences 1 Peter Klibanoff MEDS Dept., Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University peterk@kellogg.northwestern.edu Massimo Marinacci Collegio Carlo Alberto, Università
More informationUncertainty and all that
Uncertainty and all that Massimo Marinacci AXA-Bocconi Chair in Risk Department of Decision Sciences and IGIER Università Bocconi EAERE 23 rd Annual Conference Athens, 1 July 2017 Probability of facts
More informationRegret aversion and opportunity dependence
Regret aversion and opportunity dependence Takashi Hayashi Department of Economics, University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 USA e-mail: th925@eco.utexas.edu First version, June 2005. This version,
More informationA gentle introduction to imprecise probability models
A gentle introduction to imprecise probability models and their behavioural interpretation Gert de Cooman gert.decooman@ugent.be SYSTeMS research group, Ghent University A gentle introduction to imprecise
More informationOn the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets
On the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets Satoshi Fukuda September 23, 2018 Abstract This paper studies implications of the consistency conditions among prior, posteriors, and information
More information