IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v321y2023i1d10.1007_s10479-022-05097-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Centroids of the core of exact capacities: a comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Enrique Miranda

    (University of Oviedo)

  • Ignacio Montes

    (University of Oviedo)

Abstract

Capacities are a common tool in decision making. Each capacity determines a core, which is a polytope formed by additive measures. The problem of eliciting a single probability from the core is interesting in a number of fields: in coalitional game theory for selecting a fair way of splitting the wealth between the players, in the transferable belief model from evidence theory or for transforming a second order into a first order model. In this paper, we study this problem when the goal is to determine the centroid of the core of a capacity, and we compare four approaches: the Shapley value, the average of the extreme points, the incenter with respect to the total variation distance and the limit of a procedure of uniform contraction. We show that these four centroids do not coincide in general, we give some sufficient conditions for their equality, and we analyse their axiomatic properties. We also discuss how to define a notion of centrality measure indicating the degree of centrality of an additive measure in the core. Finally, we also analyse these four centroids in the more general context of imprecise probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrique Miranda & Ignacio Montes, 2023. "Centroids of the core of exact capacities: a comparative study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 321(1), pages 409-449, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:321:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-022-05097-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-05097-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-05097-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-022-05097-1?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. Michel Grabisch, 2013. "The core of games on ordered structures and graphs," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 204(1), pages 33-64, April.
    2. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    3. Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-319-30690-2, March.
    4. Neyman, Abraham, 2002. "Values of games with infinitely many players," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 56, pages 2121-2167, Elsevier.
    5. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-1272, November.
    6. Nathan Huntley & Matthias Troffaes, 2012. "Normal form backward induction for decision trees with coherent lower previsions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 111-134, May.
    7. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    8. Sébastien Destercke, 2017. "On the median in imprecise ordinal problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(2), pages 375-392, September.
    9. Silvia Angilella & Marta Bottero & Salvatore Corrente & Valentina Ferretti & Salvatore Greco & Isabella M. Lami, 2016. "Non Additive Robust Ordinal Regression for urban and territorial planning: an application for siting an urban waste landfill," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 427-456, October.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    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. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    2. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.
    4. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "Purely subjective extended Bayesian models with Knightian unambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 547-571, December.
    5. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    6. William Neilson, 2010. "A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 113-124, October.
    7. repec:awi:wpaper:0448 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Pintér, Miklós, 2022. "How to make ambiguous strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Bernoulli Without Bayes: A Theory of Utility-Sophisticated Preferences under Ambiguity," Economics Working Papers 0072, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    11. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2021. "Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4310-4326, July.
    12. Hansen, Lars Peter, 2013. "Uncertainty Outside and Inside Economic Models," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-7, Nobel Prize Committee.
    13. Peter John Robinson & W.J.W. Botzen & F. Zhou, 2019. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Working Papers 19-19, Utrecht School of Economics.
    14. Gajdos, Thibault & Maurin, Eric, 2004. "Unequal uncertainties and uncertain inequalities: an axiomatic approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 93-118, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    17. ,, 2014. "Second order beliefs models of choice under imprecise risk: non-additive second order beliefs vs. nonlinear second order utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    18. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    19. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    20. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    21. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.

    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:spr:annopr:v:321:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-022-05097-1. 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.