IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v88y2020i2d10.1007_s11238-019-09727-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The uniqueness of local proper scoring rules: the logarithmic family

Author

Listed:
  • Jingni Yang

    (Australian National University)

Abstract

Local proper scoring rules provide convenient tools for measuring subjective probabilities. Savage (J Am Stat Assoc 66(336), 783–801, 1971) has shown that the only local proper scoring rule for more than two exclusive events is the logarithmic family. We generalize Savage (1971) by relaxing the properness and the domain, and provide simpler proof.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingni Yang, 2020. "The uniqueness of local proper scoring rules: the logarithmic family," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 315-322, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:88:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09727-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-019-09727-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-019-09727-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-019-09727-2?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. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
    2. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    3. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01306258, HAL.
    4. Emir Shuford & Arthur Albert & H. Edward Massengill, 1966. "Admissible probability measurement procedures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 31(2), pages 125-145, June.
    5. Myerson, Roger B., 1982. "Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal-agent problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 67-81, June.
    6. Johnson, Scott & Pratt, John W & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1990. "Efficiency Despite Mutually Payoff-Relevant Private Information: The Finite Case," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 873-900, July.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. D. Johnstone, 2007. "The Value of a Probability Forecast from Portfolio Theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 153-203, September.
    9. J. Aczel & J. Pfanzagl, 1967. "Remarks on the measurement of subjective probability and information," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 91-105, December.
    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. Olivier L'Haridon & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2021. "An Effective and Simple Tool for Measuring Loss Aversion," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2107, Economics, The University of Manchester.

    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. Markus M. Möbius & Muriel Niederle & Paul Niehaus & Tanya S. Rosenblat, 2022. "Managing Self-Confidence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7793-7817, November.
    2. Alex Possajennikov, 2018. "Belief formation in a signaling game without common prior: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 483-505, May.
    3. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2022. "Cognitive heterogeneity and complex belief elicitation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 557-592, April.
    4. Gneezy, Uri & Saccardo, Silvia & Serra-Garcia, Marta & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2020. "Bribing the Self," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 120, pages 311-324.
    5. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    6. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    7. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Folli, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Biases in belief reports," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Thomas Garcia & Sébastien Massoni, 2017. "Aiming to choose correctly or to choose wisely? The optimality-accuracy trade-off in decisions under uncertainty," Working Papers halshs-01631540, HAL.
    10. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    11. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Jan B. Engelmann & Maël Lebreton & Nahuel A. Salem-Garcia & Peter Schwardmann & Joël J. van der Weele, 2024. "Anticipatory Anxiety and Wishful Thinking," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(4), pages 926-960, April.
    13. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.
    14. Zahra Murad & Charitini Stavropoulou & Graham Cookson, 2019. "Incentives and gender in a multi-task setting: An experimental study with real-effort tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Bucciol, Alessandro & Quercia, Simone & Sconti, Alessia, 2021. "Promoting financial literacy among the elderly: Consequences on confidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Murad, Zahra & Starmer, Chris, 2021. "Confidence snowballing and relative performance feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 550-572.
    17. Chen, Si & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2018. "Looking at the Bright Side: The Motivation Value of Overconfidence," IZA Discussion Papers 11564, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Chih-Chung Ting & Nahuel Salem-Garcia & Stefano Palminteri & Jan B. Engelmann & Maël Lebreton, 2023. "Neural and computational underpinnings of biased confidence in human reinforcement learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Juan Dubra & Jean-Pierre Benoît & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2019. "Belief elicitation when more than money matters," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1901, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    20. Dominik Bauer & Irenaeus Wolff, 2018. "Biases in Beliefs: Experimental Evidence," TWI Research Paper Series 109, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.

    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:88:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09727-2. 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.