Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Updating Choquet valuation and discounting information arrivals

Contents:

Author Info

  • André Lapied

    ()
    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille II - Université Paul Cézanne - Aix-Marseille III - Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) - CNRS : UMR6579)

  • Robert Kast

    ()
    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpellierain d'économie théorique et appliquée - CNRS : UMR5474 - INRA : UR1135 - CIHEAM - Université Montpellier I - Montpellier SupAgro)

Abstract

We explore different possible definitions for conditional Choquet integrals and their implications for updating capacities. Many recent works consider relaxing dynamic consistency within Choquet Expected Utility models, but all of them deal with models where time is not explicitly introduced. We confront the different definitions with dynamic consistency when information arrives along with time through a Choquet version of the Net Present Value. We show that only one definition is dynamically consistent in a decision model where time is discounted according to the agent's preferences. However, it violates consequentialism because all future outcomes must be taken into consideration.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
File URL: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/05/32/PDF/2006-31.pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/05/32/PDF/2006-31s.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by HAL in its series Working Papers with number halshs-00410532.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 21 Aug 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00410532

Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00410532/en/
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

Related research

Keywords: Conditional Expectations; Updating; Choquet Expected Utility; Learning; Dynamic Consistency; Discounting;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Jaffray, J.Y., 1992. "Dynamic Decision Making with Belief Functions," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 92-15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  2. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1991. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Discussion Papers 924, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  3. Shalev, Jonathan, 1997. "Loss aversion in a multi-period model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 203-226, June.
  4. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
  5. Chateauneuf, Alain & Rebille, Yann, 2004. "Some characterizations of non-additive multi-period models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 235-250, November.
  6. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1989. "Expectation and Variation in Multi-period Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1153-69, September.
  7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  8. De Waegenaere, Anja & Wakker, Peter P., 2001. "Nonmonotonic Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-60, September.
  9. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005. "CEU preferences and dynamic consistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
  10. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
  11. De Waegenaere, Anja & Kast, Robert & Lapied, Andre, 2003. "Choquet pricing and equilibrium," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 359-370, July.
  12. Epstein Larry G. & Le Breton Michel, 1993. "Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-22, October.
  13. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1991. "Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 401-408, August.
  14. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
  15. Alain Chateauneuf & Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2001. "Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 367-386, December.
  16. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
  17. Dhaene, J. & Denuit, M. & Goovaerts, M. J. & Kaas, R. & Vyncke, D., 2002. "The concept of comonotonicity in actuarial science and finance: applications," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 133-161, October.
  18. Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(02), pages 123-133, June.
  19. Dhaene, J. & Denuit, M. & Goovaerts, M. J. & Kaas, R. & Vyncke, D., 2002. "The concept of comonotonicity in actuarial science and finance: theory," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 3-33, August.
  20. Lehrer, Ehud, 2005. "Updating non-additive probabilities-- a geometric approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 42-57, January.
  21. Wakker, Peter, 1989. "Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-27, February.
  22. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-68, December.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2006. "Updating Choquet Beliefs," Discussion Papers 0607, Exeter University, Department of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00410532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.