In this paper we study why, and when, and in what form, a satisficing strategy is a better bet for survival, than a strategy which uses the best available information in attempting to optimize the outcome. We prove that, under severe uncertainty, a robust-satisficing decision has a better probability of survival than a best-model outcome-optimizing decision. These results are based on non-probabilistic info-gap decision theory, which provides a quantification of Knightian uncertainty. We show that our results are applicable to Bayesian mixing of two models, allocation between a risky and a risk-free asset, foraging behavior, explaining Ellsberg's `paradox', satisfying multiple requirements, forecasting in dynamical systems, and managing exogenous uncertainties.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department in its series DNB Working Papers with number
138.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: