IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v113y2024ics030440682400082x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recursive two-stage evaluation model for dynamic decision making under ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • He, Ying

Abstract

In this paper, the two-stage-evaluation (TSE) model for decision making under ambiguity (He 2021) is extended to intertemporal setting in an axiomatic approach. The first set of axioms employed are commonly adopted for dynamic non-expected utility models in the literature. Besides these regular axioms, I also assume dynamic consistency and conditions which deliver a static TSE for consumption plans only pay non-zero consequences for one period. It is shown that these axioms hold if and only if these exists a recursively defined evaluation utility model representing decision maker (DM)’s preferences over consumption plans conditional on arriving at any node in an event tree. Such a recursive form implies that one can apply dynamic programming technique (rolling back the decision tree) to solve a dynamic decision making problem under TSE model. It can be shown that the solution for the recursively defined dynamic TSE model exists uniquely. Due to the “small domain” setup, the agent is short-sighted in the sense that they only process subjective probabilities over events defined on one period uncertainty over next period states, which differs from “far-sighted” assumption in most extant models that assume subjective probabilities exist over events defined on multiple periods. It is shown that under some extra conditions, our DM applies Bayes’ rule “updating’ her subjective beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Ying, 2024. "Recursive two-stage evaluation model for dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s030440682400082x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2024.103022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030440682400082X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2024.103022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Nicolas Coeurdacier & Hélène Rey, 2013. "Home Bias in Open Economy Financial Macroeconomics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 63-115, March.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    3. Klibanoff, Peter & Marinacci, Massimo & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2009. "Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 930-976, May.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1shj1p7td8e0r5c9fcsnk8a91 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Rustichini, Aldo, 2006. "Dynamic variational preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 4-44, May.
    7. Jiankang Zhang, 2002. "Subjective ambiguity, expected utility and Choquet expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(1), pages 159-181.
    8. Nehring, Klaus, 1999. "Capacities and probabilistic beliefs: a precarious coexistence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 197-213, September.
    9. Arvid O. I. Hoffmann & Thomas Post & Tom Smith, 2017. "How return and risk experiences shape investor beliefs and preferences," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(3), pages 759-788, September.
    10. Aurélien Baillon & Ning Liu & Dennie Dolder, 2017. "Comparing uncertainty aversion towards different sources," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Mark J. Machina, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion with Three or More Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3814-3840, December.
    12. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    13. Peng, Lin & Xiong, Wei, 2006. "Investor attention, overconfidence and category learning," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 563-602, June.
    14. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    15. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    16. Epstein, Larry G & Zhang, Jiankang, 2001. "Subjective Probabilities on Subjectively Unambiguous Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 265-306, March.
    17. Joshua D. Coval & Tobias J. Moskowitz, 1999. "Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 2045-2073, December.
    18. Epstein Larry G. & Le Breton Michel, 1993. "Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-22, October.
    19. Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2010. "Unique solutions for stochastic recursive utilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1776-1804, September.
    20. Snehal Banerjee, 2011. "Learning from Prices and the Dispersion in Beliefs," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(9), pages 3025-3068.
    21. Epstein, Larry G., 1983. "Stationary cardinal utility and optimal growth under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 133-152, October.
    22. Ying He, 2021. "Revisiting Ellsberg’s and Machina’s Paradoxes: A Two-Stage Evaluation Model Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6897-6914, November.
    23. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Expected Uncertain Utility Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 1-39, 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. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "Purely subjective extended Bayesian models with Knightian unambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 547-571, December.
    2. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    3. Borie, Dino, 2023. "Maxmin expected utility in Savage's framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    4. Ayala Arad & Gabrielle Gayer, 2012. "Imprecise Data Sets as a Source of Ambiguity: A Model and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 188-202, January.
    5. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Is it Possible to Define Subjective Probabilities in Purely Behavioral Terms? A Comment on Epstein-Zhang (2001)," Economics Working Papers 0067, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    6. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    7. Fan Wang, 2022. "Rank-Dependent Utility Under Multiple Priors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8166-8183, November.
    8. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Bernoulli Without Bayes: A Theory of Utility-Sophisticated Preferences under Ambiguity," Economics Working Papers 0072, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    9. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    10. Alain Chateauneuf & Luciano De Castro, 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Absence of Trade," Discussion Papers 1535, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    11. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    12. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    13. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2011. "Definitions of ambiguous events and the smooth ambiguity model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 399-424, October.
    14. André, Eric, 2016. "Crisp monetary acts in multiple-priors models of decision under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 153-161.
    15. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2011. "Rational preferences under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 341-375, October.
    16. Madhav Chandrasekher & Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2022. "Dual‐Self Representations of Ambiguity Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1029-1061, May.
    17. Qu, Xiangyu, 2013. "Maxmin expected utility with additivity on unambiguous events," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 245-249.
    18. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    19. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A measure of ambiguity (Knightian uncertainty)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 153-171, September.
    20. Driouchi, Tarik & Trigeorgis, Lenos & So, Raymond H.Y., 2020. "Individual antecedents of real options appraisal: The role of national culture and ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 1018-1032.

    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:mateco:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s030440682400082x. 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/jmateco .

    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.