IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v49y2013i6p467-470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reexamination on updating Choquet beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Horie, Mayumi

Abstract

Eichberger et al. (2007) characterize the full Bayesian update rule for capacities. This paper shows that a conditional preference relation represented by the Choquet expected utility with respect to the updated capacity through the rule does not satisfy the axiom of Conditional Certainty Equivalence Consistency. A counterexample is provided and it is proved that a relaxation of the axiom maintains their results.

Suggested Citation

  • Horie, Mayumi, 2013. "Reexamination on updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 467-470.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:49:y:2013:i:6:p:467-470
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2013.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406813000840
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2013.09.001?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. 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. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
    3. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2012. "Generalized neo-additive capacities and updating," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 8(3), pages 237-257, September.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
    6. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 35-65, May.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    8. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Peter Klibanoff & Emre Ozdenoren, 1998. "Maximum Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Discussion Papers 1218, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mayumi Horie, 2016. "Bayesian Updating for Complementarily Additive Beliefs under Ambiguity," KIER Working Papers 935, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    2. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2019. "Consequentialism and dynamic consistency in updating ambiguous beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(1), pages 223-250, July.
    3. Cinfrignini, Andrea & Petturiti, Davide & Vantaggi, Barbara, 2023. "Dynamic bid–ask pricing under Dempster-Shafer uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2017. "Ambiguity and the Centipede Game: Strategic Uncertainty in Multi-Stage Games," Working Papers 0638, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    5. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2020. "Objective rationality foundations for (dynamic) alpha-MEU," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2244R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jul 2021.
    6. Frick, Mira & Iijima, Ryota & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2022. "Objective rationality foundations for (dynamic) α-MEU," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    7. Giulianella Coletti & Davide Petturiti & Barbara Vantaggi, 2019. "Dutch book rationality conditions for conditional preferences under ambiguity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 279(1), pages 115-150, August.
    8. Lorenzo Bastianello & José Heleno Faro, 2023. "Choquet expected discounted utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 1071-1098, May.
    9. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2018. "Consequentialism and Dynamic Consistency in Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," KIER Working Papers 987, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    10. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2021. "Extended Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Choquet Beliefs," Papers 2109.02597, arXiv.org.
    11. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2019. "Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Ambiguous Beliefs," Papers 1911.02678, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.

    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. Mayumi Horie, 2007. "A General Update Rule for Convex Capacities," KIER Working Papers 644, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    2. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    3. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    4. Chambers, Robert G. & Melkonyan, Tigran, 2009. "Smoothing preference kinks with information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 173-189, September.
    5. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "Purely subjective extended Bayesian models with Knightian unambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 547-571, December.
    6. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2020. "Calibrated uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    8. Alon, Shiri & Schmeidler, David, 2014. "Purely subjective Maxmin Expected Utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 382-412.
    9. Mayumi Horie, 2016. "Bayesian Updating for Complementarily Additive Beliefs under Ambiguity," KIER Working Papers 935, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    10. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    11. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin expected utility through statewise combinations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 49-54, January.
    12. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    13. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Frick, Mira & Iijima, Ryota & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2022. "Objective rationality foundations for (dynamic) α-MEU," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    15. Thomas Breuer & Martin Summer, 2013. "Stress Test Robustness: Recent Advances and Open Problems," Financial Stability Report, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue 25, pages 74-86.
    16. Takao Asano, 2004. "Portfolio Inertia and [Epsilon]-Contaminations," ISER Discussion Paper 0610, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    17. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    18. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
    19. 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.
    20. Eisei Ohtaki, 2016. "Optimality of the Friedman rule under ambiguity," Working Papers e103, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.

    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:49:y:2013:i:6:p:467-470. 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.