IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kyo/wpaper/1080.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Simple Axiomatization of Neo-Additive Choquet Expected Utility Theory on a Finite State Space

Author

Listed:
  • Takao Asano

    (Okayama University)

  • Hiroyuki Kojima

    (Teikyo University)

  • Kaname Miyagishima

    (Aoyama Gakuin University)

Abstract

By assuming that a state space is finite, we provide an easy-to-understand axiomatization of neo-additive Choquet expected utility theory (CEU) following Chateauneuf et al. (2007). Our axiomatization based on Moebius inversions sheds new light on their usefulness for our understanding of the behaviors of decision makers and enables us to provide new interpretations for neo-additive CEU from uncertainty aversion (uncertainty lovingness) and certainty equivalent, respectively. Furthermore, our approach enables us to understand the relationship between existing contributions by Chateauneuf et al. (2007), Kajii et al. (2009), and Asano and Kojima (2022) in a clearer and more unified way.

Suggested Citation

  • Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima & Kaname Miyagishima, 2022. "A Simple Axiomatization of Neo-Additive Choquet Expected Utility Theory on a Finite State Space," KIER Working Papers 1080, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:1080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DP1080.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    3. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55, pages 483-505, May.
    4. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2011. "Are the treasures of game theory ambiguous?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 313-339, October.
    5. Chateauneuf, Alain & Jaffray, Jean-Yves, 1989. "Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Mobius inversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 263-283, June.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324, October.
    8. Daiki Kishishita & Susumu Sato, 2021. "Optimal risk regulation of monopolists with subjective risk assessment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 251-279, June.
    9. Diamantaras, Dimitrios & Gilles, Robert P., 2011. "Ambiguity, social opinion and the use of common property resources," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 210-222.
    10. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    11. Jean-Yves Jaffray & Fabrice Philippe, 1997. "On the Existence of Subjective Upper and Lower Probabilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 165-185, February.
    12. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2022. "Choquet Integrals and Belief Functions," KIER Working Papers 1077, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    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. Dominiak, Adam & Eichberger, Jürgen, 2021. "Games in context: Equilibrium under ambiguity for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 125-159.
    2. Péter Bayer & Ani Guerdjikova, 2020. "Optimism leads to optimality: Ambiguity in network formation," Working Papers hal-03005107, HAL.
    3. Ronald Stauber, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2019-668, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    4. Chen, Hsiao-Chi & Liu, Shi-Miin, 2024. "Optimal investments of port authorities facing ambiguity on uncertain market demands," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. Craig Webb, 2015. "Piecewise additivity for non-expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 371-392, October.
    6. Adam Dominiak & Ani Guerdjikova, 2021. "Special Issue on Ambiguity and Strategic Interactions in Honor of Jürgen Eichberger," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 301-307, May.
    7. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2011. "Are the treasures of game theory ambiguous?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 313-339, October.
    8. David Kelsey & Tigran Melkonyan, 2018. "Contests with ambiguity," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1148-1169.
    9. Lorenz Hartmann & David Kelsey, 2024. "Location Invariance and Games with Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 2024-05, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Stauber, Ronald, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 38-64.
    11. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2012. "When is ambiguity–attitude constant?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 239-263, December.
    12. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    13. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Peter Wakker, 2011. "Jaffray’s ideas on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 11-22, July.
    16. repec:awi:wpaper:0469 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "Neo-additive capacities and updating," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-31, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    18. David Kelsey & Sara Roux, 2015. "An experimental study on the effect of ambiguity in a coordination game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 667-688, December.
    19. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2021. "The evolutionary stability of optimism, pessimism, and complete ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 417-454, May.
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard Schipper, 2008. "Granny Versus Game Theorist: Ambiguity in Experimental Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 333-362, March.
    22. Luca Rigotti & Matthew Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2011. "Optimism and firm formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Neo-additive Choquet Expected Utility; Moebius Inversion;

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kyo:wpaper:1080. 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: Makoto Watanabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekyojp.html .

    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.