IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kyo/wpaper/643.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reexamination on Updating Choquet Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Mayumi Horie

    (Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University)

Abstract

Eichberger, Grant, and Kelsey (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

  • Mayumi Horie, 2007. "Reexamination on Updating Choquet Beliefs," KIER Working Papers 643, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:kyo:wpaper:643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/DP/DP643.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
    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. 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.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dominiak, Adam & Eichberger, Jürgen & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "Agreeable trade with optimism and pessimism," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 119-126.

    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. Horie, Mayumi, 2013. "Reexamination on updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 467-470.
    2. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    3. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    4. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    5. 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.
    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. A. Ludwig & A. Zimper, 2013. "A parsimonious model of subjective life expectancy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 519-541, October.
    8. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Mayumi Horie, 2007. "A General Update Rule for Convex Capacities," KIER Working Papers 644, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    11. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    12. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    13. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    14. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "Neo-additive capacities and updating," Papers 08-31, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    15. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2019. "Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Ambiguous Beliefs," Papers 1911.02678, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    16. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2013. "Ambiguous Survival Beliefs and Hyperbolic Discounting in a Life-Cycle Model," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79878, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Alain Chateauneuf & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Yves Jaffray, 2011. "Regular updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 111-128, July.
    18. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2021. "Extended Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Choquet Beliefs," Papers 2109.02597, arXiv.org.
    19. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2020. "Objective rationality foundations for (dynamic) alpha-MEU," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2244, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Alexander Zimper, 2012. "The emergence of “fifty-fifty” probability judgements in a conditional Savage world," Working Papers 291, Economic Research Southern Africa.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bayesian update; capacity; conditional preference; Choquet expected utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:643. 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.