IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v144y2009i5p2146-2173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foundations of neo-Bayesian statistics

Author

Listed:
  • Amarante, Massimiliano

Abstract

We study an axiomatic model of preferences, which contains as special cases Subjective Expected Utility, Choquet Expected Utility, Maxmin and Maxmax Expected Utility and many other models. First, we give a complete characterization of the class of functionals representing these preferences. Then, we show that any such functional can be represented as a Choquet integral where is the canonical mapping from the space of bounded [Sigma]-measurable functions into the space of weak*-continuous affine functions on a weak*-compact, convex set of probability measures on [Sigma]. Conversely, any preference relation defined by means of such functionals satisfies the axioms of the model we study. Different properties of the capacity give rise to different models. Our result shows that the idea of Choquet integration is general enough to embrace all the models mentioned above. In doing so, it widens the range of applicability of well-known procedures in robust statistics theory such as the Neyman-Pearson lemma for capacities [P.J. Huber, V. Strassen, Minimax tests and the Neyman-Pearson lemma for capacities, Ann. Statist. 1 (1973) 251-263], Bayes' theorem for capacities [J.B. Kadane, L. Wasserman, Bayes' theorem for Choquet capacities, Ann. Statist. 18 (1990) 1328-1339] or of results like the Law of Large numbers for capacities [F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, A strong law of large numbers for capacities, Ann. Probab. 33 (2005) 1171-1178].

Suggested Citation

  • Amarante, Massimiliano, 2009. "Foundations of neo-Bayesian statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2146-2173, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:144:y:2009:i:5:p:2146-2173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-0531(09)00049-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2001. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 864-890, November.
    2. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    3. Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2003. "A Subjective Spin on Roulette Wheels," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1897-1908, November.
    4. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    5. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    6. F J Anscombe & R J Aumann, 2000. "A Definition of Subjective Probability," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7591, David K. Levine.
    7. Massimo Marinacci, 2002. "Learning from ambiguous urns," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 143-151, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Pennesi, Daniele, 2020. "A general theory of subjective mixtures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    4. Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2009. "Ambiguity through confidence functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(9-10), pages 535-558, September.
    5. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2005. "Certainty Independence and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 129-136, January.
    6. Gajdos, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Representation and aggregation of preferences under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 68-99, July.
    7. Wakker, Peter P. & Yang, Jingni, 2019. "A powerful tool for analyzing concave/convex utility and weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 143-159.
    8. Massimiliano Amarante, 2017. "Information and Ambiguity: Toward a Foundation of Nonexpected Utility," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 1254-1279, November.
    9. Massimiliano AMARANTE, 2014. "What is Ambiguity?," Cahiers de recherche 04-2014, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    10. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    11. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Mixed extensions of decision problems under uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(4), pages 827-866, April.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory's value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 403-416, October.
    13. Massimiliano Amarante, 2015. "Analogy in Decision Making," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 1027-1041, October.
    14. Karni, Edi, 2009. "A reformulation of the maxmin expected utility model with application to agency theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1-2), pages 97-112, January.
    15. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.
    16. Massimiliano Amarante, 2017. "Conditional expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 175-193, August.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    18. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2022. "Ambiguity aversion and wealth effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    19. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2013. "Ambiguity and robust statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 974-1049.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Luigi Montrucchio, 2011. "Ambiguity and Robust Statistics," Working Papers 382, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    20. Chen Li & Uyanga Turmunkh & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Trust as a decision under ambiguity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 51-75, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:144:y:2009:i:5:p:2146-2173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.