IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v78y2015i2p319-337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregating infinitely many probability measures

Author

Listed:
  • Frederik Herzberg

Abstract

The problem of how to rationally aggregate probability measures occurs in particular (i) when a group of agents, each holding probabilistic beliefs, needs to rationalise a collective decision on the basis of a single ‘aggregate belief system’ and (ii) when an individual whose belief system is compatible with several (possibly infinitely many) probability measures wishes to evaluate her options on the basis of a single aggregate prior via classical expected utility theory (a psychologically plausible account of individual decisions). We investigate this problem by first recalling some negative results from preference and judgment aggregation theory which show that the aggregate of several probability measures should not be conceived as the probability measure induced by the aggregate of the corresponding expected utility preferences. We describe how McConway’s (Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(374):410–414, 1981 ) theory of probabilistic opinion pooling can be generalised to cover the case of the aggregation of infinite profiles of finitely additive probability measures, too; we prove the existence of aggregation functionals satisfying responsiveness axioms à la McConway plus additional desiderata even for infinite electorates. On the basis of the theory of propositional-attitude aggregation, we argue that this is the most natural aggregation theory for probability measures. Our aggregation functionals for the case of infinite electorates are neither oligarchic nor integral-based and satisfy (at least) a weak anonymity condition. The delicate set-theoretic status of integral-based aggregation functionals for infinite electorates is discussed. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Frederik Herzberg, 2015. "Aggregating infinitely many probability measures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 319-337, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:78:y:2015:i:2:p:319-337
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-014-9424-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-014-9424-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-014-9424-5?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Riedel, 2009. "Optimal Stopping With Multiple Priors," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 857-908, May.
    2. Dietrich, F.K. & List, C., 2007. "Opinion pooling on general agendas"," Research Memorandum 038, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    3. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Herzberg, Frederik & Eckert, Daniel, 2017. "Impossibility results for infinite-electorate abstract aggregation rules," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 427, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    6. Herzberg, Frederik & Eckert, Daniel, 2012. "The model-theoretic approach to aggregation: Impossibility results for finite and infinite electorates," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 41-47.
    7. Frederik S. Herzberg, 2013. "The (im)possibility of collective risk measurement: Arrovian aggregation of variational preferences," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(1), pages 69-92, May.
    8. Herzberg, Frederik, 2014. "Aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian Archimedean preferences: Arrovian impossibility results," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 488, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    9. Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2009. "A simple ultrafilter proof for an impossibility theorem in judgment aggregation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(1), pages 319-327.
    10. Lauwers, Luc & Van Liedekerke, Luc, 1995. "Ultraproducts and aggregation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 217-237.
    11. Campbell, Donald E., 1990. "Intergenerational social choice without the Pareto principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 414-423, April.
    12. Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1979. "The Impossibility of Bayesian Group Decision Making with Separate Aggregation of Beliefs and Values," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1321-1336, November.
    13. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    14. Mark Fey, 2004. "May’s Theorem with an infinite population," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(2), pages 275-293, October.
    15. Dennis Lindley, 1983. "Reconciliation of Probability Distributions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, October.
    16. 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.
    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. Michael Nielsen, 2019. "On linear aggregation of infinitely many finitely additive probability measures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 421-436, May.
    2. Minkyung Wang, 2024. "Aggregating individual credences into collective binary beliefs: an impossibility result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 39-66, August.
    3. David McCarthy & Kalle Mikkola & Teruji Thomas, 2019. "Aggregation for potentially infinite populations without continuity or completeness," Papers 1911.00872, arXiv.org.

    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. Herzberg, Frederik, 2014. "Aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian Archimedean preferences: Arrovian impossibility results," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 488, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    2. Frederik S. Herzberg, 2013. "The (im)possibility of collective risk measurement: Arrovian aggregation of variational preferences," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(1), pages 69-92, May.
    3. Herzberg, Frederik, 2013. "Arrovian aggregation of MBA preferences: An impossibility result," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79957, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Brian Hill & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Robust Social Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2407-2425, September.
    5. Zuber, Stéphane, 2016. "Harsanyi’s theorem without the sure-thing principle: On the consistent aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian and Archimedean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 78-83.
    6. Hill , Brian & Danan , Eric, 2014. "Aggregating Tastes, Beliefs, and Attitudes Under Uncertainty," HEC Research Papers Series 1057, HEC Paris.
    7. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01415412 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jingyi Xue, 2020. "Preferences with changing ambiguity aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 1-60, February.
    9. Casaca, Paulo & Chateauneuf, Alain & Faro, José Heleno, 2014. "Ignorance and competence in choices under uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 143-150.
    10. 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.
    11. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    12. Peter Klibanoff & Sujoy Mukerji & Kyoungwon Seo, 2014. "Perceived Ambiguity and Relevant Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1945-1978, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Gonçalo Faria & João Correia-da-Silva, 2014. "A closed-form solution for options with ambiguity about stochastic volatility," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 125-159, July.
    15. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    16. ,, 2016. "Objective rationality and uncertainty averse preferences," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    17. Mihm, Maximilian, 2016. "Reference dependent ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 495-524.
    18. Kops, Christopher & Borah, Abhinash, 2014. "Preferences under Ambiguity Without Event-Separability," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100629, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Jianming Xia, 2020. "Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Game of Two Selves," Papers 2012.07509, arXiv.org.
    20. José Faro, 2013. "Cobb-Douglas preferences under uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 273-285, October.
    21. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Probabilistic opinion pooling; General aggregation theory; Richard Bradley; Multiple priors; Arrow’s impossibility theorem; Bayesian epistemology; Society of mind; Finite anonymity; Ultrafilter; Measure problem; Non-standard analysis; D71; D81; C11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:theord:v:78:y:2015:i:2:p:319-337. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.