IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-252232.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A mechanism for eliciting the mean and quantiles of a random variable

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Demuynck

Abstract

We present two Becker–DeGroot–Marschak type incentive compatible elicitation mechanisms. The first can be used to elicit an agent’s belief about the mean of a random variable while the second elicits the quantiles.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Demuynck, 2013. "A mechanism for eliciting the mean and quantiles of a random variable," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/252232, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/252232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/252232/3/013.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qu, Xiangyu, 2012. "A mechanism for eliciting a probability distribution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 399-400.
    2. Holt, Charles A. & Smith, Angela M., 2009. "An update on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 125-134, February.
    3. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    4. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2013. "The Binarized Scoring Rule," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 984-1001.
    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. Markus Eyting & Patrick Schmidt, 2019. "Belief Elicitation with Multiple Point Predictions," Working Papers 1818, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 16 Nov 2020.
    2. Lazzati, Natalia & Van Essen, Matt, 2014. "A nearly optimal auction for an uninformed seller," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 396-399.
    3. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    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. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    2. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, 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," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    4. Choi, Jin Hyuk & Han, Kookyoung, 2020. "Optimal contract for outsourcing information acquisition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Li Hao & Daniel Houser, 2012. "Belief elicitation in the presence of naïve respondents: An experimental study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 161-180, April.
    6. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2022. "Cognitive heterogeneity and complex belief elicitation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 557-592, April.
    7. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2014. "Eliciting subjective probabilities with binary lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 128-140.
    8. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Markus Eyting & Patrick Schmidt, 2019. "Belief Elicitation with Multiple Point Predictions," Working Papers 1818, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 16 Nov 2020.
    10. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Dustan, Andrew & Koutout, Kristine & Leo, Greg, 2022. "Second-order beliefs and gender," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 752-781.
    12. Jin Hyuk Choi & Kookyoung Han, 2023. "Delegation of information acquisition, information asymmetry, and outside option," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 833-860, September.
    13. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Xie, Erhao, 2016. "Identification of Biased Beliefs in Games of Incomplete Information Using Experimental Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 11275, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. David Ronayne & Roberto Veneziani & William R. Zame, 2022. "Do Decision Makers Have Subjective Probabilities? An Experimental Test," Working Papers 940, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    16. de Haan, Thomas, 2020. "Eliciting belief distributions using a random two-level partitioning of the state space," Working Papers in Economics 1/20, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    17. 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..
    18. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2010. "Subjective beliefs formation and elicitation rules: experimental evidence," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10088, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Steffen Andersen & John Fountain & Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2014. "Estimating subjective probabilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 207-229, June.
    20. Becker, Christoph K. & Melkonyan, Tigran & Proto, Eugenio & Sofianos, Andis & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2020. "Reverse Bayesianism: Revising Beliefs in Light of Unforeseen Events," IZA Discussion Papers 13821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C49 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Other

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/252232. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.